Gibler v. City of Mattoon
Decision Date | 03 April 1897 |
Parties | GIBLER et al. v. CITY OF MATTOON. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Coles county court; S. S. Anderson, Judge.
Petition by the city of Mattoon to the county court for the appointment of commissioners to assess the cost of a street improvement. There was a judgment confirming the assessment, and H. C. Gibler and others bring error. Affirmed.
J. S. Hughes and D. T. McIntyre, for plaintiffs in error.
James W. Craig and Edward C. Craig, for defendant in error.
This is writ of error brought by 21 plaintiffs in error-viz. Henry C. Gibler, Elizabeth Randolph, Albert Turner, Homer Barney, Charles Snyder, Frank Champ, Theodore Jonta, Stephen Coddington, John Steidel, William Linder, Charles A. Hall, Albert Mounts, C. S. Whittaker, Jacob McFarland, John Mayer, W. D. Rudy, Willis Walkup, Frank Holmes, Charles Morgan, John Voigt, and J. C. Newcomb-to reverse the judgment of the county court of Coles county confirming a special assessment against lots and lands in the city of Mattoon, for the improvement of C street in that city, by draining, grading, curbing, guttering, and paving said street, and putting in street crossings and catch-basins therein. As to the last 10 of these plaintiffs, there is nothing whatever in the record, or alleged in the assignment of errors, to show that they have any interest whatever in any of the lots or parcels of land against which judgment was rendered below, or that they were parties to or in any wise injured by such judgment. Section 34 of article 9 of the statute concerning special assessments (Rev. St. c. 24) provides: The judgment is a judgment in rem, and not against persons, and it is a several judgment, as against each tract or parcel of land, for the amount shown by the judgment to have been finally assessed against it. No property owner or other person can assign as error any act of the court in rendering judgment, or in any step of the proceedings culminating in final judgment, against any tract or parcel of land in which he has no interest; and this is upon the principle, often announced, that a party cannot assign for error that which concerns another, but which does not injuriously affect him. Of course, if it appears, from the record, that his rights in the premises are prejudiced by the error, his complaint may be heard, even although the same error affects the interests of other parties or persons.
Turning to the abstract filed by plaintiffs in error, and which, so far as their interests are concerned, must be taken as being, as required by the rules of this court, ‘a complete abstract or abridgment of the record,’ we find, aside from the mere formal order, reciting the various steps taken and confirming the assessment, and reference to the record, the following only: It is seen that the last 10 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmelzer v. Kansas City
...was not a moot case. Adams v. Union Ry. Co., 42 A. 515. (9) The proceeding was one in rem, and conclusive against the world. Gibler v. Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18; People v. Linda Vista Irrigation Dist., 128 Cal. 477; Rialto Irrigation Dist. v. Brandon, 103 Cal. 384; In re Union Ry. Co., 112 N.Y. ......
-
City of Chicago v. Partridge
...nearly all of the plaintiffs in error who have sued out the writ in this case were also plaintiffs in error in the case of Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 , in which the judgment was affirmed. * * * A judgment of this kind is several as to each tract or parcel of land in the assessme......
-
City of Chicago v. Univ. of Chicago
...the owner. Craw v. Village of Tolono, 96 Ill. 255, 36 Am. Rep. 143;Dempster v. People, 158 Ill. 36, 41 N. E. 1022;Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18, 47 N. E. 319;City of Chicago v. Partridge, 248 Ill. 442, 94 N. E. 115. The charge is against the property benefited, and the purpose of t......
-
Village of Winnetka v. Murph
...is taken.’ A special assessment against land is a judgment in rem, (St. John v. City of East St. Louis, 50 Ill. 92; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18, 47 N.E. 319); and the reversal of the judgment on appeal benefits only the objectors who were appellants. Harman v. People, 214 Ill. 45......