Marsh v. Vill. of Fairbury

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPHILLIPS
Citation45 N.E. 236,163 Ill. 401
PartiesMARSH et al. v. VILLAGE OF FAIRBURY et al.
Decision Date09 November 1896

163 Ill. 401
45 N.E. 236

MARSH et al.
v.
VILLAGE OF FAIRBURY et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 9, 1896.


Appeal from circuit court, Livingston county; T. F. Tipton, Judge.

Bill for injunction and other relief, brought by the village of Fairbury and others against John L. Marsh, Jr., and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.


[163 Ill. 402]C. C. Strawn, for appellants.

163 Ill. 403]C. F. H. Carrithers and E. A. Agard, for appellees.
[163 Ill. 404]PHILLIPS, J.

In 1857 a tract of land owned by Patton & Canute was platted, acknowledged, and recorded as the original town of Fairbury, in Livingston county, Ill. In July, 1859, John L. Marsh, Sr., the owner of the land adjoining the original town, caused it to be surveyed into blocks, lots, streets, alleys, and public grounds. The plat was certified by the surveyor and himself, and he acknowledged the same before the clerk of the circuit court, and had the same recorded. At the time this plat was acknowledged and recorded, the statute then in force required such plat to be acknowledged before a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the circuit court, or a justice of the peace. On the plat so made and recorded, block 10 is not laid off into lots, and is noted on the plat as a public square. By the certificate, the streets, alleys, and public square

[45 N.E. 237

are dedicated to the use of the public forever by the owner, who platted the same. At the time this plat was filed, there was no incorporated town, village, or city of Fairbury. The town of Fairbury was incorporated in 1864, and included the territory within both of these plats. [163 Ill. 405]After its incorporation the proper town authorities took charge of the streets, alleys, grounds, etc., improved the streets, and did other work of a public nature, and for the public benefit. John L. Marsh, Sr., resided in block 11, opposite the public square, from the time of the incorporation of the town and prior thereto, until his death, in 1885. After filing this plat for record, lots were sold by Marsh with reference to it, and some of those sold fronted on the public square, and representations were made to the purchasers that that was a cause for their being more valuable and desirable. The conveyances made described the lots as being in Marsh's addition to the town of Fairbury. In all the acts of Marsh he recognized the plat as valid. Some time before the commencement of this suit, the defendant John L. Marsh, Jr., a grandson of John L. Marsh, Sr., who was the proprietor of said addition, acting for himself, this mother, and sister, Mrs. Fleming, threatened to put up buildings upon block 10, and exclude the public from said square, whereupon the village filed the original bill herein for an injunction, and to have its rights to said public square adjudicated. Subsequently certain lot owners who had purchased lots fronting said square obtained leave to come in as co-complainants in said bill. After issue joined, the cause was referred to the master to take proofs, and report the same, with his conclusions. The master took the proofs, and found the facts and the law to be in favor of the complainants, and a decree was entered by the court in accordance with the report of the master. Elizabeth G. Marsh, one of the defendants, was the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Bond v. Dunmire, No. 4-83-0351
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 28, 1984
    ...v. Jackson, [ (1907) ], 229 Ill. 506 [82 N.E. 348]." (305 Ill. 189, 192, 137 N.E. 114, 116.) See also Marsh v. Village of Fairbury (1896), 163 Ill. 401, 45 N.E. 236; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood (1886), 118 Ill. 61, 6 N.E. 866; Corning & Co. v. Woolner (1903), 206 Ill. 190, 69 N.E. 53;......
  • Kirchen v. Remenga, No. 36.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 9, 1939
    ...485. The rule in Michigan is generally recognized in other States. Calkins v. Westervelt, D.C., 214 F. 415;Marsh v. Fairbury, 163 Ill. 401, 45 N.E. 236;Baltimore Belt R. Co. v. McColgan, 83 Md. 650, 35 A. 59;Thorndike v. Milwaukee Auditorium Co., 143 Wis. 1, 126 N.W. 881;Holloway loway v. S......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...its validity or correctness. (State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 52; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 349; Clark v. Burke (Ill.), 45 N.E. 236; White v. Sup. Court (Cal.), 42 P. 482; Ray v. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. S., 301; State v. Jamison (Minn.), 72 N.W. 451; State v. Dist. Court (Mont.), 40 P......
  • Village of Riverside v. MacLean
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 23, 1904
    ...v. Stark, 176 Ill. 456, 52 N. E. 37;Conkling v. Village of Mackinaw City, 120 Mich. 67, 79 N. W. 6;Marsh v. Village of Fairbury, 163 Ill. 401, 45 N. E. 236. In Marsh v. Village of Fairbury, supra, it was said (page 407, 163 Ill., page 238, 45 N. E.): ‘But in connection with these public rig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Bond v. Dunmire, No. 4-83-0351
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 28, 1984
    ...v. Jackson, [ (1907) ], 229 Ill. 506 [82 N.E. 348]." (305 Ill. 189, 192, 137 N.E. 114, 116.) See also Marsh v. Village of Fairbury (1896), 163 Ill. 401, 45 N.E. 236; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood (1886), 118 Ill. 61, 6 N.E. 866; Corning & Co. v. Woolner (1903), 206 Ill. 190, 69 N.E. 53;......
  • Kirchen v. Remenga, No. 36.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 9, 1939
    ...485. The rule in Michigan is generally recognized in other States. Calkins v. Westervelt, D.C., 214 F. 415;Marsh v. Fairbury, 163 Ill. 401, 45 N.E. 236;Baltimore Belt R. Co. v. McColgan, 83 Md. 650, 35 A. 59;Thorndike v. Milwaukee Auditorium Co., 143 Wis. 1, 126 N.W. 881;Holloway loway v. S......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...its validity or correctness. (State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 52; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 349; Clark v. Burke (Ill.), 45 N.E. 236; White v. Sup. Court (Cal.), 42 P. 482; Ray v. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. S., 301; State v. Jamison (Minn.), 72 N.W. 451; State v. Dist. Court (Mont.), 40 P......
  • Village of Riverside v. MacLean
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 23, 1904
    ...v. Stark, 176 Ill. 456, 52 N. E. 37;Conkling v. Village of Mackinaw City, 120 Mich. 67, 79 N. W. 6;Marsh v. Village of Fairbury, 163 Ill. 401, 45 N. E. 236. In Marsh v. Village of Fairbury, supra, it was said (page 407, 163 Ill., page 238, 45 N. E.): ‘But in connection with these public rig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT