Landberg v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 15 December 1908 |
| Parties | LANDBERG v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; C. M. Walker, Judge.
Action by Christ Landberg to enjoin the City of Chicago and others from enforcing an ordinance. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Edward J. Brundage, Corp. Counsel, Clarence N. Board, George M. Bagby, and Emil C. Welten, for appellants.
James Turnock and Robert Redfield (Tolman, Redfield & Sexton, of counsel), for appellee.
The circuit court of Cook county overruled the demurrer of the city of Chicago and its mayor and commissioner of health, the appellants, to the bill in equity of Christ Landberg, the appellee, for an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance establishing stations for shipping manure from said city, and giving the exclusive privilege of engaging in that business to any bidder whom the mayor and commissioner of health might choose to contract with. The defendants stood by their demurrer, and the court entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The defendants prayed an appeal, and the court certified that the validity of a municipal ordinance was involvedand the public interest required that the case be taken directly to this court. The appeal was allowed, and the record certified to this court.
The material facts alleged in the bill and admitted by the demurrer are as follows: The complaint was engaged in the business of shipping manure from the city of Chicago from certain fixed places or stations on 6 different railroads, and had been so engaged for about 7 years, loading and shipping an average of 40 cars per week. He had contracts with numerous persons and corporations, by which he was bound to remove, and did remove, from their premises daily all the manure that had accumulated. He had complied with all ordinances of the city, regulations of the department of health, and orders of the commissioner of health pertaining to the conduct of his business and maintained the same in a sanitary condition, and never failed to have manure removed within the time required by the ordinances, rules, and orders of the city and health department. On April 13, 1908, the city council passed the ordinance in question, providing that the commissioner of health should designate a requisite number of stations in the city, adjoining some railway or waterway, for the purpose of receiving and shipping manure which might be deposited at such stations. The ordinance divided the city into three divisions for the purposes of the ordinance, and authorized the commissioner to advertise for and receive bids for the exclusive privilege of establishing and maintaining such stations and shipping or removing manure therefrom. The bids were to be made separately for each division and accompanied by a certified check for $200 to secure the making of a contract, and the commissioner was authorized, with the approval of the mayor, to enter into a contract with some reliable and responsible bidder, giving him the exclusive right to remove manure from such stations, saving to the owners of domestic animals the right to haul manure accumulating on their premises to a point beyond the limits of the city, or to gardens, farms, or lawns within the city, for fertilizing purposes, subject to rules and regulations to be made by the commissioner. The ordinance made it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, other than the party to whom the commissioner should choose to award the contract, to use any of the stations, and it would effectually prevent any other person from engaging in the business of shipping manure, destroy complainant's business, and compel him to violate his contracts.
A citizen has a right to pursue any lawful avocation which he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary for the protection of the public health, morals, safety, and welfare. City of Chicago v. Netcher, 183 Ill. 104, 55 N. E. 707,48 L. R. A. 261, 75 Am. St. Rep. 93. To the farmer manure is a valuable commodity, and the collection, shipping, and sale of it is a perfectly legitimate business, in which the complainant was engaged, shipping about 40 car loads weekly from the city to the country. It is a business,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mader v. The City of Topeka
... ... tending to show it to be unreasonable as applied to a ... particular person. ( City of Chicago v. Gunning ... System, 214 Ill. 628, 641, 73 N.E. 1035; Penna. R ... R. Co. v. Jersey City, 47 N. J. L. 286.) ... "But the courts will ... same privilege is not granted to those who do not obtain such ... consent. (See, also, Landberg v. Chicago, 237 Ill ... 112, 21, 86 N.E. 638 L. [106 Kan. 874] R. A., n. s., 830; ... City of New York v. Reesing, 77 A.D. 417, 79 N.Y.S ... ...
-
State v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...v. Gilfillan, 36 Minn. 298, 31 N. W. 49;State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 79, 84 S. W. 10,68 L. R. A. 402;Landberg v. Chicago, 237 Ill. 112, 86 N. E. 638,21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 830, 127 Am. St. Rep. 319;Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 37 N. E. 402,39 N. E. 869,28 L. R. A. 679, 683,49 Am. St. Rep. 222. ......
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Evanston
...to exercise it where its application would be arbitrary or capricious. As was pointed out in Landberg v. City of Chicago, 237 Ill. 112, 117, 86 N.E. 638, 640, 21 L.R.A., N.S., 830; 'if a general power is given to a municipal corporation to act on a particular subject, the courts assume that......
-
State v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
...§ 328; City of St. Paul v. Gilfillan, 36 Minn. 298, 31 N.W. 49; State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 79, 84 S.W. 10, 68 L.R.A. 402; Landberg v. City, 237 Ill. 112, 86 N.E. E. 638, L.R.A. (N.S.) 830, 127 Am. St. 319; Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 37 N.E. 402, 39 N.E. 869, 28 L.R.A. 679, 683, 49 Am. St......