McChesney v. Kern

• Decision Date: 29 November 1893
• Citation: 35 N.E. 739,148 Ill. 221
• Parties: McCHESNEY et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. KERN, County Collector.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

148 Ill. 221

35 N.E. 739

McCHESNEY et al.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. KERN, County Collector.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 29, 1893.

Appeal from Cook county court; Frank Scales, Judge.

Application for judgment for delinquent taxes. Joseph H. McChesney and others filed objections, which were overruled, and they appeal. Reversed.F. W. Becker, for appellants.

M. W. Robinson, W. E. Thorne, and Adolf Kraus, Corp. Counsel, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

This was an application of the county collector of Cook county for judgment against deliquent lands for the collection of taxes and special assessments. The appellants appeared in the county court, and filed objections in writing to the application as follows: ‘They object to the entry of judgment herein against said lots, and each of them, because the judgment of confirmation upon which said warrant 17,143 was issued was and is void, for want of jurisdiction in the court rendering the same.’ Upon looking into the record, it appears that the city of Chicago passed an ordinance for the construction of a sidewalk on Bond avenue, providing that the cost of the improvement should be paid by special assessment. On the 26th day of January, 1893, the city of Chicago filed a petition in the county court of Cook county, setting out the ordinance, and praying that the cost of the improvement might be assessed in the manner prescribed by law. The court entered an order January 27, 1893, appointing Humphrey Moynihan, W. L. Roseboom, and W. O. Morse commissioners to make the assessment. The commissioners, after being duly sworn, as required by the statute, examined the premises proposed, and returned to the court an assessment roll in manner and form as required by the statute. Thus far no objections are urged against the validity of the proceedings; but it is claimed that the notices published by the commissioners fixing upon a time and place when and where application would be made for a confirmation of the assessment were insufficient, and the court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment of confirmation. Section 27 of the act entitled ‘Cities, Villages, and Towns,’ under which the proceedings were had, provides: ‘It shall be the duty of such commissioners to give notice of such assessment, and of the term of court at which a final hearing thereon will be had, in the following manner: ‘First. They shall send by mail to each owner of the premises assessed, whose name and place of residence is known to them, a notice substantially in the following form: [Then follows the form of a notice to be signed by the three commissioners.] Second. They shall cause at least ten days' notice to be given by posting notices in at least four public places in such city or village, * * * and, when a daily newspaper is published in such city or village, by publishing the same at least five successive days in such daily newspaper. * * * The notice may be substantially as follows: [Then follows the form of notice to be signed by the commissioners.]’ As has been observed, the three commissioners appointed to make the assessment were Humphrey Moynihan, W. L. Roseboom, and W. O. Morse; and the notices mailed to owners of lands were signed by the three persons named as commissioners, but the notices posted and published in a daily paper, under the second clause of the section of the statute supra, were signed by William A. Taylor, W. L. Roseboom, and W. O. Morse; and it is claimed, on account of the defect in the notices, the court had no jurisdiction to confirm the assessment. It is...