Gage v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 19 June 1901 |
| Citation | 60 N.E. 896,191 Ill. 210 |
| Parties | GAGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Cook county court; Frank Scales, Judge.
Proceedings by the city of Chicago for a special assessment for the construction of certain sewers, to which Henry H. Gage, an abutting property owner, objected. From a judgment confirming the assessment, the defendant brings error. Reversed.F. W. Becker, for plaintiff in error.
Charles M. Walker, Corp. Counsel, and Robert Redfield, Asst. Corp. Counsel, and William M. Pindell, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendant in error.
This is a special assessment proceeding to pay the cost of a connected system of sewers in the city of Chicago. The ordinance providing for such connected system of sewers was passed by the city council on November 2, 1891. Petition was filed in the county court of Cook county on November 25, 1891, to which was attached a certified copy of the ordinance, alleging that the commissioners appointed by the common council to make an estimate of the cost of the improvement contemplated by the ordinance theretofore, on November 9, 1891, made a report to the council (which was afterwards approved by it), estimating the cost at $14,406.65; the copy of the report being annexed to the petition, and made a part thereof. The petition prayed for an assessment of the cost of the improvement in the manner prescribed by law. An order was made by the court on November 25, 1891, appointing commissioners to make the assessment. The assessment roll was filed on January 28, 1892. On February 8, 1892, the plaintiff in error entered his appearance, and filed his objections to the confirmation of the special assessment. On May 27, 1892, hearing upon the objections of the plaintiff in error was passed, and it was ordered that the cause proceed, and a jury come. On May 28, 1892, the jury returned their verdict, finding the issues for the petitioner, the city of Chicago, and that the property of the objector was not assessed more or less than it would be benefited by the improvement, nor more or less than its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement. On June 1, 1892, the cause came on to be heard on the assessment roll and the objections thereto, and by agreement a trial by jury was waived, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury, and the court overruled said objections, and thereupon, on motion of the attorney of the city of Chicago, it was ordered and adjudged by the court that said assessment and all proceedings therein be, and the same were thereby, confirmed, and that the clerk of the court certify the same, together with the judgment, to the city collector, as required by law. Afterwards, on March 28, 1899, a judgment was entered by the court, by the terms of which, after reciting that no judgment had ever been entered upon said verdict, it was, upon motion of the petitioner, further adjudged and decreed that judgment of confirmation be, and was thereby, entered upon said verdict, confirming said assessment roll as to all such objections; and it was further thereby ordered that the clerk of the court certify the judgment to the city collector for collection according to law. The present writ of error is sued out for the purpose of reviewing the said judgment.
MAGRUDER, J. (after stating the facts).
Among the objections made to the confirmation of the assessment by the plaintiff in error in the county court was the objection that the ordinance lying at the basis of the assessment was void for uncertainty. The following diagram shows the situation and aspect of the proposed sewers, and the streets through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Water Works Trs. of Des Moines v. Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
...property by the opening of manholes and releasing poisonous gases, it is responsible for resulting damage); Gage v. City of Chicago , 191 Ill. 210, 60 N.E. 896, 897 (1901) (holding that an ordinance which resulted in preventing the connection of sewer systems was void because the city had "......
-
McMurry v. Kansas City and Thomas Kelley & Son
... ... 476; ... Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 140 Ill. 216; ... Briggs v. Union Drainage Dist., 140 Ill. 53; ... Albertson v. Town of Chicago, 120 Ill. 226; Gage ... v. Chicago, 191 Ill. 210; Church v. People ex ... rel., 179 Ill. 205; Johnson v. Duer, 115 Mo ... 377. (6) Kansas ... ...
-
Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughborough
...sewerage company plaintiff had no right to empty his sewerage upon its property, and equity would enjoin him from doing so. 77 Hun 604; 191 Ill. 210; Ga. 963; 142 Ill. 194; 59 A.D. 30; 70 N.Y.S. 284. Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee. Since the record does not contain a......
-
City of Chicago v. Univ. of Chicago
...758,People v. Cook County, 180 Ill. 341, 54 N. E. 173,Bickerdike v. City of Chicago, 185 Ill. 280, 56 N. E. 1096, and Gage v. City of Chicago, 191 Ill. 210, 60 N. E. 896. It is also contended that the assessment was, in fact, discriminatory as between the leasehold estates in exempt propert......