Dunham v. People Ex Rel. Mccrea.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1880
• Citation: 1880 WL 10110,96 Ill. 331
• Parties: JOHN H. DUNHAMv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. McCrea.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

96 Ill. 331

1880 WL 10110 (Ill.)

JOHN H. DUNHAM

v.THE PEOPLE ex rel. McCrea.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Sept. 25, 1880.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the First District; Hon. THEODORE D. MURPHY, presiding Justice, and the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS and Hon. JOSEPH M. BAILEY, Justices;--heard in that court on writ of error to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. MASON B. LOOMIS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. HARRISON & WHITEHEAD, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. F. H. KALES and Mr. R. S. THOMPSON, for the defendant in error.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a writ of error to the Appellate Court for the First District, wherein it affirmed a judgment rendered by the county court of Cook county, against certain lands, and an order of sale thereof, which lands were claimed to be delinquent for the sixth installment of a certain special assessment, made by the South Park Commissioners, a body politic and corporate, created by an act commonly called the South Park act, found in Private Laws, 1869, volume 1, p. 358. By another act, approved June 16, 1871, these commissioners were empowered to make a special assessment, to be divided into installments; the first not to exceed 25 per cent of the assessment, and the remainder, after deducting the first installment, to be divided into seven equal installments, to be payable annually,--all installments to bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. Revised Statutes, 1874, p. 736.

In pursuance of this act, the South Park Commissioners made an assessment, which was confirmed by the circuit court, and divided into eight installments, of which the one now in controversy is the sixth.

In pursuance of section 178 of the revenue law, the commissioners made a delinquent return to the county treasurer, embracing a charge for this 6th installment, and he to the county court. In accordance with the statute, the plaintiff in error, being the owner of the property assessed, filed in that court objections.

These objections were overruled by the county court, from which a writ of error was prosecuted to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed. To reverse that judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.

The point made here by the plaintiff in error is that the law of 1871, under which this assessment was made, is unconstitutional. The position taken is that the constitution only authorizes the corporate authorities of cities, towns and villages to make local improvements by special assessment proceedings; and it is insisted that the South Park Commissioners are neither of these.

The park district consists of the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake. The title of the act under which the South Park Commissioners were organized, is an act to provide for the location and maintenance of a park for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake. (Private Laws of 1869.) By the first section of the act, the South Park Commissioners are constituted “a board of park commissioners, for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake, to be known under the name of the South Park Commissioners.”

The act of 1871, the constitutionality of which is called in question, is entitled, an act to enable the corporate authorities of two or more towns, for park purposes, “to issue bonds and provide for their payment; and to make, revise and collect special assessments,” etc.

...