Cochran v. Village of Park Ridge
Decision Date | 15 June 1891 |
Citation | 27 N.E. 939,138 Ill. 295 |
Parties | COCHRAN et al. v. VILLAGE OF PARK RIDGE. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook county court; FRANK SCAHO, Judge.
E. J. Whitehead, C. E. Pickard, and A. W. Pulver, for appellants.
Hoyne, Follansbee & O'Connor and J. A. Phelps, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county confirming a special assessment levied for the purpose of paying for the construction of a sewer in the village of Park Ridge, in Cook county. The following objections are urged against the validity of the proceedings:
The village of Park Ridge is situated on the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, about midway between the north branch of the Chicago river on the east, and the Desplaines river on the west, about a mile and a half from each. The village is built on a ridge running in a northerly and southerly direction the entire length of the village. The first section of the ordinance providing for the improvement, provided that a sewer should be constructed from the east bank of the Desplaines river to the center line of Greenwood avenue, and from that point to Center street; thence east, to a point 100 feet west of the westerly line of Park avenue. It does not appear from the ordinance that the Desplaines river is outside of the incorporated limits of the village; but, on the hearing, evidence was introduced showing that the western boundary of the village was about 4,000 feet east of the river. It also appears that there is no outlet for the sewerage of the village, except the Chicago river on the east, or the Desplaines river on the west; and the question presented is whether the village had the power to go outside of its corporate limits, and obtain an outlet. Section 1, art. 9, c. 24, Rev. St., provides: ‘The corporate authorities of cities and villages are hereby vested with power to make local improvements by special assessment * * * as they shall by ordinance prescribe.’ It may be conceded that a municipal corporation cannot, as a general rule, exercise its powers beyond its own limits. If it has power to do so, that power must come from a statute which directly or indirectly confers the power. The section of the statute, supra, which confers authority on a village to make local improvements by special assessments, was no doubt intended to confine the improvement to the territory within the incorporated limits of the village, and under the statute the corporate authorities of the village would have no power to make improvements in territory outside of its incorporated limits. But what is the object and true scope of the improvement under consideration? Is it one within or outside of the incorporated limits of the village? The object was to furnish sewerage for the inhabitants of the village. The improvement was for the benefit of those then residing within the incorporate limits of the village, and for them alone; but, in order to make the sewer a success, in order to make the improvement of any benefit to any person in the village, it must have an outlet. No outlet could be found within the incorporated limits. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary to extend the sewer a short distance outside of the incorporated limits in order to obtain an outlet. In order to carry out the true scope and object of the ordinance providing for the improvement, it became necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trimont Land Co. v. Truckee Sanitary Dist.
...of Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, 53 Am.St.Rep. 191, 31 L.R.A. 794, 44 P. 358; City of Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474; Cochran v. Village of Park Ridge, 138 Ill. 295, 27 N.E. 939; 4 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, sec. 1434.) McQuillin, in his work on Municipal Corporations, states the rule ......
-
Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...of Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, 44 P. 358, 31 L.R.A. 794, 53 Am.St.Rep. 191; City of Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474; Cochran v. Vilage of Park Ridge, 138 Ill. 295, 27 N.E. 939; 4 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 1434.' Ebrite v. Crawford, 215 Cal. 724, 728-729, 12 P.2d 937; In re Blois, 1......
-
City of Chicago v. McCartney
...of exceptions. Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206, 29 N. E. 683;Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 Ill. 493, 18 N. E. 752;Cochran v. Village of Park Ridge, 138 Ill. 295, 27 N. E. 939. But no bill of exceptions is necessary where the error appears in the record and judgment of the court. Kitchell v......
-
Freeman v. Trimble
... ... Kelly, 76 N.Y. 487; Re New ... York, 99 N.Y. 584, 2 N.E. 642; Cochran v. Park ... Ridge, 138 Ill. 300, 27 N.E. 939; Maywood Co. v ... obtained by the village authorities, and therefore the whole ... proceeding is illegal, the ... ...