Kilgallen v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 16 December 1903 |
| Citation | 206 Ill. 557,69 N.E. 586 |
| Parties | KILGALLEN et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; L. C. Ruth, Judge.
Proceedings for the confirmation of a special assessment for the improvement of a system of streets in the city of Chicago. From a judgment of confirmation, Martin H. Kilgallen and others appeal. Reversed.
Joseph H. Fitch, for appellants.
William M. Pindell and Frank Johnston, Jr. (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, and Robert Redfield, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the county court of Cook county confirming a special assessment for the improvement of a system of streets in the city of Chicago, known as the ‘West Montrose Avenue System.’
It was contended on the hearing, which contention is renewed here, that the estimate of the engineer of the cost of the improvement was not made a part of the record of the first resolution of the board of local improvements, and that by reason of such fact the ordinance providing for the improvement was void, and that a judgment of confirmation could not be properly entered, confirming an assessment based thereon, against objector's property. The first resolution is, in part, as follows: ‘Be it resolved by the board of local improvements of the city of Chicago, that a local improvement be and the same is hereby originated, to be made within the city of Chicago, * * * the estimate of the cost of such improvement made by the engineer of the board being $112,000, which said estimate is hereby referred to and made a part of this resolution by reference.’
In Bickerdike v. City of Chicago, 203 Ill. 636, 68 N. E. 161, it was held that the provision of section 7 of the local improvement act of 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 104) that the board should cause an estimate of the cost of the improvement to be made in writing by the public engineer, over his signature which shall be itemized to the satisfaction of the board, and which shall be made a part of the record of the first resolution, is mandatory, and that no valid ordinance could be passed or valid assessment for a local improvement be made without complying with said provision of the statute. An attempt has been made here to comply with section 7 of said act by making the estimate of the cost of the improvement a part of the record of the first resolution by reference to the estimate, and the question here presented for decision is, can the estimate of the cost of the improvement be made a part of the ‘record of such resolution’ by that method? We are of the opinion the engineer's estimate of the cost of the improvement cannot thus be made a part of the record of said resolution. The statute, in express terms, provides that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siegel v. City of Chicago
...for it by the officers who undertake to exercise it. Clarke v. City of Chicago, 185 Ill. 354, 57 N. E. 15;Kilgallen v. City of Chicago, 206 Ill. 557, 69 N. E. 586. We are of the opinion, therefore, that a patented material which can be obtained or purchased from but one person, firm, or cor......
-
Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Banfill
... ... Banfill against the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for ... ...
-
Hulbert v. City Of Chicago
... ... City of Chicago, 203 Ill. 636, 68 N. E. 161, and Kilgallen v. City of Chicago, 206 Ill. 557, 69 N. E. 586, the proceedings required by said section of the statute are held to be jurisdictional, and that a valid ordinance cannot be passed for a local improvement to be paid for by special assessment or special taxation without a compliance therewith; and in ... ...
-
Chicago Union Traction Co. v. City of Chicago
...as to the amount of the estimated cost, is identical with the resolution which this court had under consideration in Kilgallen v. City of Chicago, 206 Ill. 557, 69 N. E. 586, where we held that such a reference to the estimate, when contained in the resolution, did not show compliance with ......