Macchesney v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 06 June 1907
• Citation: 81 N.E. 410,227 Ill. 215
• Parties: MacCHESNEY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

227 Ill. 215

81 N.E. 410

MacCHESNEY et al.

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1907.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1907.

Appeal from Cook County Court; Hinebaugh, Judge.

Application by the city of Chicago for the confirmation of a special assessment for a system of sewers in certain streets in the city of Chicago.From the confirmation of the special assessment, Nathan William MacChesney and others appeal.Judgment affirmed.

MacChesney & Bradley and F. W. Becker, for appellants.

Charles M. Mitchell and Frank Johnston, Jr.(James Hamilton Lewis, Corp.Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from confirmation of a special assessment for a system of sewers in certain streets in the city of Chicago.

It is urged that the ordinance contains no provisions for an item in the estimate of $11,500 for rock excavation.The facts in this record on this question are identical with those in Gage v. City of Chicago, 225 Ill. 218, 80 N. E. 127, and our conclusion in that case must control here.The holding in that case and in Rich v. City of Chicago, 152 Ill. 18, 38 N. E. 255, is conclusive, also, on the point whether the city of Chicago is without authority to levy a special assessment for a sewer on the ground that such power is vested exclusively in the board of trustees of the sanitary district.It is not shown that the lands here in question are connected with or drained by the drainage system of said sanitary district.We express no opinion as to the law on this question when such lands are so connected and proof is made of that fact.

It is also urged that the estimate is not sufficiently itemized as to house and catchbasin slants and street connections.In Lyman v. Town of Cicero, 222 Ill. 379, 78 N. E. 830, relied upon by appellants, a cinder foundation for a curb was not referred to in any way in the estimate, although provided for in the ordinance.In that casewe said (page 383 of 222 Ill.,page 831 of 78 N. E.): ‘The extent to which separate items are to be set down evidently depends upon the nature of the improvement, which may all be fairly included in one item or may consist of several.’The necessary house and catch-basin slants and street connections are all referred to and included in the estimate, but not in separage items.We think the estimate is not erroneous in this regard.

The point as to the estimate containing the words, ‘lawful expenses attending the same,’ has been considered and disposed of contrary to the contentions of the appellants in Lanphere v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill. 440, 72 N. E. 426, and other cases.

It is further urged that there is a variance between the first resolution and the ordinance, in that the former does not and the latter does create and describe a drainage district.We held in Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 162 Ill....