McChesney v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 16 December 1903 |
| Citation | 69 N.E. 38,205 Ill. 528 |
| Parties | McCHESNEY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; Frank Harry, Judge.
Proceedings for the confirmation of a special assessment for a local improvement by the city of Chicago. From a judgment of confirmation, A. B. McChesney and others appeal. Affirmed.
F. W. Becker, for appellants.
Robert Redfield and William M. Pindell (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.
This case was here on a former appeal, when it was decided that the judgment of confirmation of a special assessment, entered after the act took effect, by which it was provided that the cost of making and collecting such assessment should be paid by the city out of its general funds, was erroneous in including such cost. McChesney v. City of Chicago, 201 Ill. 344, 66 N. E. 217. For that error the cause was remanded to the county court, and, being reinstated there, appellants filed additional objections, alleging that the ordinance for the improvement was void because it contained a provision that the whole cost of the improvement, including the cost of making and collecting the special assessment, should be paid by such assessment, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to proceed further. Appellee moved the court to recast the assessment roll as to the property of appellants, by deducting therefrom the cost of making and collecting the assessment. The court granted the motion, recast the assessment roll accordingly, and thereupon overruled the objections. A jury being waived, the question of benefits was submitted to the court, and on a hearing the assessment as reduced was confirmed.
It is contended by appellants that the ordinance was void, for the reason that it, and the estimate on which it was based, included the item of cost; that the defect could only be cured, if at all, by a new estimate, a new ordinance, and a new proceeding; and that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment of confirmation. If an ordinance for a special assessment is void, it is a nullity, and a court cannot acquire jurisdiction to confirm an assessment by virtue of it. An ordinance by which a city attempts to levy a special assessment not authorized by law is of that nature, as where it provides that the cost of paving approaches to a viaduct, or other space which it is the duty of a railroad company to pave, shall be paid by special assessment levied upon the property of individuals. City of Chicago v. Nodeck, 202 Ill. 257, 67 N. E. 39;American Hide & Leather Co. v. City of Chicago, 203 Ill. 451, 67 N. E. 979. If an improvement cannot, in law, be paid for by special assessment, an ordinance providing that it shall be so paid for is void,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Chicago v. Jerome
...of these proceedings. Where an assessment roll is recast there must be a new trial and a new order of confirmation. McChesney v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. 528, 69 N. E. 38. It is elementary that a judgment entered against a party or his property without his having had notice of the proceedi......
-
Gage v. People ex rel. Hanberg
...such case-it need now only be said that the question here raised was fully considered by this court in the case of McChesney v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. 528, 69 N. E. 38, and decided adversely to appellant's contention. 2. It is next urged that the cause was redocketed, in compliance with ......
-
Thompson v. People ex rel. Hanberg
...assessment, and to then enter judgment confirming the assessment. This precise question was before this court in McChesney v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. 528, 69 N. E. 38, where the question was decided adversely to the view of the appellant. It is further contended that no itemized estimate ......
- White v. Kilmartin