Craig v. People ex rel. Gannaway
| Decision Date | 18 December 1901 |
| Citation | 61 N.E. 1072,193 Ill. 199 |
| Parties | CRAIG v. PEOPLE ex rel. GANNAWAY, County Collector. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Coles county court; John P. Harrah, Judge.
Application by the people, on the relation of D. C. Gannaway, county collector of Coles county, for judgment against the lots of Isaac B. Craig in the city of Mattoon for a special tax levied by such city for a street improvement. Isaac B. Craig filed objections to the application. From an order overruling such objections, and from a judgment for the sale of the lots, he brings error. Reversed.James W. & E. C. Craig and Isaac B. Craig, for plaintiff in error.
Anderson Stewart, City Atty., and John F. Voigt, Jr., State's Atty., for defendant in error.
The county court of Coles county coverruled objections to the application of the county collector of said county for judgment against lots of plaintiff in error in the city of Mattoon for a special tax levied by said city to pay for a concrete cement sidewalk on the north side of Shelby avenue, on which the lots abutted, and rendered judgment for sale of the lots. The ordinance for the construction of the sidewalk was passed April 30, 1900, under the provisions of the act to provide additional means for the construction of sidewalks, in force July 1, 1875. 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, p. 857. It provided that the entire cost of the sidewalk, and all expenses, should be paid by special taxation of the lots or parcels of land along the line of the sidewalk according to their frontage thereon, and that the sidewalk should conform to the general sidewalk ordinance of the city. The general sidewalk ordinance so referred to and made a part of the ordinance for this sidewalk, provided that a permanent grade should be established in the street covered by any special ordinance for a sidewalk before work thereunder should be required to be performed. Said ordinance for the construction of this sidewalk allowed to the owners 30 days after its publication to build the sidewalk in front of their respective lots or parcels of land, as provided by said statute, and required that the entire space of the walk should be excavated to the depth of 14 inches below the established grade of the street, and the sub-grade should then be rolled and tamped until such sub-grade presented a smooth and regular surface, in strict conformity with the grade established, and the sidewalk should be built thereon as specified in the ordinance. Plaintiff in error did not build in sidewalk in front of his lots, and the city undertook the construction of it. It was shown on the hearing that no grade of said street had ever been established. Before the city commenced work, the city engineer set stakes for the at which the sidewalk was built, but no ordinance was ever passed establishing a grade.
It is not necessary that the ordinance for a local improvement should recite the ordinance establishing the grade. Parker v. Village of La Grange, 171 Ill. 344, 49 N. E. 550. Reference to the established grade of a street to be improved, which has been established by another ordinance, is a sufficient specification of the grade. Claflin v. City of Chicago, 178 Ill. 549, 53 N. E. 339. But a street grade can only be established by an ordinance of the city. Chicago & N. P. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 174 Ill. 439, 51 N. E. 596;Shannon v. Village of Hinsdale, 180 Ill. 202, 54 N. E. 181. Where an ordinance requires an improvement that is to be paid for by special taxation to conform to an established grade, the tax will not be legal in the absence of an ordinance establishing such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. City of Casper
... ... 233; Chicago & N. P. R. Co ... v. City Chicago, 51 N.E. 596; Craig v ... Gannaway, 61 N.E. 1072.) A street grade can be ... established ... App.) 199 Mo.App ... 80, 202 S.W. 266; Church v. People, 179 Ill. 205, 53 ... N.E. 554; Davis v. City of Litchfield, 145 Ill ... ...
-
Pierson v. People ex rel. Walter
...sidewalk is to be apportioned upon the lots, a certified bill of costs cannot be made before the sidewalk is completed. Craig v. People, 193 Ill. 199, 61 N. E. 1072. Where the cost of making a sidewalk in front of a lot is levied upon such lot, the reason for the rule does not exist, and th......
-
Vill. of London Mills v. White
...126, 54 N. E. 233;Shannon v. Village of Hinsdale, 180 Ill. 206, 54 N. E. 181;People v. Mount, 186 Ill. 575, 58 N. E. 360;Craig v. People, 193 Ill. 201, 61 N. E. 1072. If the establishment of a street grade cannot be accomplished by a resolution, but must be effected by an ordinance, surely ......
-
People ex rel. Raymond v. Latham
...for in the ordinance must be constructed before the bill of cost can be made out. Such was the holding of this court in Craig v. People, 193 Ill. 199, 61 N. E. 1072, where it was said: ‘The evidence was that the sidewalk was not completed when the bill of cost was filed, nor at the time of ......