Gage v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 08 February 1907
• Citation: 80 N.E. 127,225 Ill. 218
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: GAGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO.

225 Ill. 218

80 N.E. 127

GAGE

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1906.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1907.

Appeal from Cook County Court; W. L. Pond, Judge.

Application by the city of Chicago for the confirmation of a special assessment, to which Henry H. Gage appeared, and filed objections, and from an order overruling the same, he appeals. Affirmed.F. W. Becker, for appellant.

Charles H. Mitchell and Frank Johnston, Jr. (James Hamilton Lewis, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was an application for the confirmation of a special assessment, levied to pay the cost of constructing a sewer in Saginaw avenue, in the city of Chicago. The appellant appeared, and filed objections to confirmation as to his property, which were overruled, and he has prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The first reason urged by the appellant as a ground for a reversal in this court is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence, over his objection, a certified copy of the improvement ordinance, upon the face of which, it is said, there appeared certain material erasures and interlineations, without requiring the appellee to explain said apparent alterations. The law indulges no presumption as to when a change in a written instrument was made, but requires the party offering an altered instrument in evidence, if the alteration is material, to explain such alteration satisfactorily to the court before the instrument will be admitted in evidence. Such explanation may satisfactorily appear from the instrument itself, or it may be made by extrinsic evidence. Reed v. Kemp, 16 Ill. 445;Catlin Coal Co. v. Lloyd, 180 Ill. 398, 54 N. E. 214,72 Am. St. Rep. 216;Webster v. Yorty, 194 Ill. 408, 62 N. E. 907;Landt v. McCullough, 206 Ill. 214, 69 N. E. 107. The certified copy of the ordinance offered in evidence or the original ordinance is not before us, but a copy of the ordinance appearing in the record was made upon a printed blank, from which, apparently, the portions which did not correspond with the original ordinance were stricken out, and in lieu thereof the provisions of the ordinance substituted for the parts stricken out were written in with pen and ink. The blank, when thus changed, made the ordinance harmonious throughout, while without such change it would not have been, and if the authorities above referred to apply with their full force to a certified copy of a record, we think the certified copy of the ordinance offered in evidence carried, upon its face, a full and complete explanation of said erasures and interlineations. The copy of the ordinance offered in evidence was certified by the city clerk to be a true copy of the original ordinance on file in his office. We think he court did not err in admitting the certified copy of the ordinance in evidence. Merritt v. Boyden & Son, 191 Ill. 136, 60 N. E. 907,85 Am. St. Rep. 246.

It is next urged that there are no provisions in the ordinance providing for excavating and filling, although the engineer's estimate of the cost of the improvement contains an item of $6,270 for ‘rock excavation.’ The ordinance fixed the size of the sewer pipe and the grade of the bottom of the inside of the sewer throughout the length of the sewer below city datum, from which data the amount of excavating and filling can readily be ascertained, and this was all that was required in the ordinance. McChesney v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. 611, 69 N. E. 82.

It is further urged that the city of Chicago is without authority in law to levy a special assessment to construct a sewer, as it is said such power is vested exclusively in the board of trustees of the sanitary district of Chicago. There is no proof in this record that the system of sewers of the sanitary district has been completed. We are of the opinion, therefore, the question sought to be raised by the appellant cannot be raised upon this record.

It is also urged that there is a variance between the resolutions of the board of local improvements and the ordinance, in this: that the former fail to provide for house connection slants, manholes, catch-basins, sewer connections, and manholeand catch-basin covers, while the ordinance does make provision for house connection slants, manholes, catch-basins, etc. It is not necessary that the resolutions of the board of local improvements enter into a detailed specification of the improvement proposed to be...