Dickey v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 29 October 1894
• Parties: DICKEY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

152 Ill. 468

38 N.E. 932

DICKEY et al.

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 29, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; E. F. Dunne, Judge.

Petition by the city of Chicago for confirmation of a special assessment. Charles D. Dickey and others filed objections, which were overruled, and judgment of condemnation was entered. Objectors appeal. Reversed.

Mason Bros., for appellants.

Harry Rubens, for appellee.

MAGRUDER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the circuit court of Cook county affirming an assessment in a supplemental proceeding, levied to raise the amount necessary to pay the compensation awarded by the judgment in a condemnation proceeding commenced by appellee for widening Central Park avenue between Chicago avenue and North avenue in the city of Chicago. The appellants, being the trustees and devisees under the will of Hugh T. Dickey, deceased, appeared, and filed objections to the confirmation of the assessment below. Several objections were filed to the confirmation of the assessment, all of which were overruled, and exception was taken. The only one of these objections which is now insisted upon and which is discussed by counsel is that the judgment of condemnation was invalid for want of jurisdiction over Hugh T. Dickey. The petition for condemnation was filed on December 18, 1890. The condemnation judgment was rendered on July 22, 1891. The supplemental petition was filed on October 7, 1891. Hugh T. Dickey died June 3, 1892. The assessment roll was filed on February 10, 1893, and the objections were filed on February 20, 1893. Section 5 of article 9 of the city and village act provides that the petition for condemnation shall contain the names of the owners of the land to be taken or damaged, and, where any known owners are nonresidents of the state, the fact of such nonresidence must be stated. Here the petition states ‘that the lots, pieces of land, and property which will be taken or damaged, and the names of the owners and occupants thereof, so far as known to the corporation counsel of the city of Chicago, the officer filing this petition, are as follows, viz. Hugh T. Dickey, west 33 feet of S. 1/2 of lot 1,’ etc. Then follow the names of other owners, and the descriptions of other property. There was no allegation in the petition, nor any statement in any affidavit filed in the cause, that Hugh T. Dickey was a nonresident. Section 6, art. 9, c. 24, 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. pp. 488, 489. Summons was issued against him, and returned ‘Not found’ as to him. It is true that affidavit was filed and publication made under section 6 of article 9 as to unknown owners. But this publication cannot be regarded as service upon Dickey, because his name was mentioned in the petition as a...