Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People ex rel. Ashwill
| Decision Date | 08 November 1897 |
| Citation | 170 Ill. 224,48 N.E. 215 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. PEOPLE ex rel. ASHWILL, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cumberland county court; G. Monohan, Judge.
Proceeding by the people, on the application of John F. Ashwill, county treasurer, to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From a judgment against the delinquent lands of defendant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Clark & Scott, for appellant.
Smith Misner, State's Atty., James W. Craig, Edward C. Craig, and Emery Andrews, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cumberland county against delinquent lands belonging to the appellant, situated in the village of Neoga, in that county, upon the application of the treasurer and ex officio collector of the county for judgment against the same on account of the nonpayment of taxes and assessments due thereon for the year 1895. The village of Neoga passed ordinances providing for the construction of sidewalks upon certain streets in the village, and providing that the cost therefor should be paid by special taxation of the lots, parts of lots, or parcels of land contiguous to and abutting said streets along the line of improvement, according to the frontage on said sidewalks. The appellant company entered its appearance, and filed objections to the entry of judgment against its delinquent lands. Upon the trial of these objections, testimony was introduced by the village and the appellant. The court overruled the objections, and entered judgment in accordance with the application of the collector.
The property specially taxed for the building of sidewalks is described in the delinquent list, as publshed and as filed in the office of the clerk of the county court, as follows:
On the trial the following stipulation was entered into: ‘It is stipulated by the parties in interest and the Illinois Central Railroad Company that these sidewalks, wherein special assessments were made, were built fronting lands as follows: That is to say, that Oak street is east of the track of the Illinois Central track, and that Chestnut street is west of the track of the Illinois Central, and that both Oak and Chestnut streets run north and south, parallel with the track of the Illinois Central Railroad Company; that there is ninety-six feet between Oak street and the track, and eighty-three feet between the track and Chestnut street, and that each sidewalk between the track and Oak street was built ninety-six feet, commencing at Oak street, and running west to the track on the east side of the track, and the sidewalks were built eighty-three feet, commencing at Chestnut street, and running east to the track on the west side of the track, and that the assessments were made against the land fronting, adjoining, and contiguous to each sidewalk; that First South street and Second South street and First North street run east and west, in said village of Neoga.’
1. The appellant filed seven objections to the entry of judgment against its property. The first, third, and fourth of these objections may be considered together, as they charge, in substance, that the description of the real estate upon which the special taxes for the building of the sidewalks were levied was defective. The lands specially taxed were parts of the right of way of the appellant. The description thereof is alleged to be indefiniteand void for uncertainty; and it is also more particularly averred that there is no such subdivision of the appellant's right of way or other lands as is expressed by the list of delinquent lands, lots, etc., filed in the cause. The property upon which the special taxes are levied is described as belonging to appellant. The first sidewalk is described as being a sidewalk between Chestnut and Oak streets, on the north side of First North street, west of the railroad track. The land contiguous to and abutting upon the sidewalk is described as having a frontage upon the street of 83 feet, and a depth of 200 feet. The second sidewalk is described as being upon the north side of the street, and east of the railroad track, having a frontage on the street of 96 feet, and a depth of 200 feet. The third and fourth sidewalks are described as being on the south side of said street, west and east of the railroad track, and having the same frontage and depth, respectively, as above stated. Four other sidewalks are described as being between Chestnut and Oak streets, on both sides of First South street, and west and east of the railroad track, having, respectively, the same frontage and depth as above indicated. Also, two other sidewalks are described as being between Chestnut and Oak streets, upon the north side of Second South street, and west and east of the railroad track, having the same frontage and depth as above indicated. The description of the improvement is more particularly set forth in the statement which precedes this opinion. The sidewalks did not extend all the way across the right of way of the railroad company, but only up to the east and west sides of the track. It is conceded by the stipulation that the distance from the east side of Chestnut street, which was west of the track, to the west side of the track, was 83 feet. It is also conceded that the distance from the west side of Oak street, which was on the east side of the track, to the east side of the track, was 96 feet. Hence each sidewalk upon the west side of the track and the north side of the street abutted upon and was contiguous to a parcel of land belonging to the railroad company whose frontage was 83 feet. Each sidewalk upon the east side of the track and north side of the street abutted upon and was contiguous to land of the railroad company which had a frontage of 96 feet upon the north side of the street. There was no indefiniteness or uncertainty in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern P. Ry. Co. v. City of Seattle
... ... v. Elmhurst, ... 165 Ill. 148, 46 N.E. 437; People ex rel. Scott v ... Pitt, 169 N.Y. 521, 62 N.E. 662, ... ...
-
Robertson Lumber Co. v. City of Grand Forks
... ... Mulany, 129 Wis. 377, 109 ... N.W. 139; State ex rel. Scotten v. Brill, 58 Minn ... 152, 59 N.W. 989; Iowa ... exercise of knowledge, discretion, and fairness. People ... ex rel. Keim v. Desmond, 186 N.Y. 232, 78 N.E. 857; ... 521, 58 L.R.A. 372, 62 N.E. 662; ... Illinois C. R. Co. v. People, 170 Ill. 224, 48 N.E ... 215; ... were assessed 30 per cent higher than lots in the residence ... district. The ... ...
-
Pierson v. People ex rel. Walter
...v. City of Peoria, 150 Ill. 80, 37 N. E. 69;Payne v. Village of South Springfield, 161 Ill. 285, 44 N. E. 105;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People, 170 Ill. 224, 48 N. E. 215;Job v. City of Alton, 189 Ill. 256, 59 N. E. 622,82 Am. St. Rep. 448. Such determination by the city council must......
- City of East St. Louis v. Illinois State Trust Co.