People ex rel. Fisher v. Carter

• Decision Date: 23 June 1904
• Citation: 210 Ill. 122,71 N.E. 369
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. FISHER v. CARTER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

210 Ill. 122

71 N.E. 369

PEOPLE ex rel. FISHER

v.CARTER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1904.

Mandamus by the people, on relation of one Fisher, against Orrin N. Carter. Writ denied.N. W. Hacker and William J. Donlin, for petitioner.

Robert Redfield and Frank Johnston, Jr. (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for respondent.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The relators, upon leave granted, filed their petition in this court for a writ of mandamus directed to the respondent, commanding him, as judge of the county court of Cook county, to settle, sign, and seal a bill of exceptions in a proceeding in that court for a special assessment to pay for the construction of a system of main sewers, with a pumping station, in the city of Chicago, in which the lands and property of relators were assessed. Attached to the petition is a copy of a bill of exceptions tendered to the respondent by the relators, which he refused to sign and seal, which recites that, upon the hearing of objections to the assessment, certain evidence was offered on behalf of the relators for the purpose of proving that the engineer's estimate of the cost of the improvement was not made a part of the record of the first resolution adopted by the board of local improvements. The answer of the respondent states that he has always been ready and willing to settle, seal, and sign such a bill of exceptions as will truly represent and contain all the matters and things which occurred upon the hearing of relators' objections to the assessment, and which may be properly preserved by a bill of exceptions, but denies that the bill of exceptions tendered to him truly represents the proceeding, or that the objection and evidence relating to the estimate, or the record thereof, were made or introduced by the relators at any time on the hearing of their objections.

The cause has been submitted for decision upon the pleadings, and the facts appearing therefrom are as follows: The city of Chicago instituted a proceeding in the county court of Cook county, of which the respondent is judge, for the levy of a special assessment to pay for the construction of a sewage system, with pumping station, including buildings and machinery, and a system of main sewers, in the streets of said city, at an estimated cost of $887,000. The improvement covers an area of 11 square miles, and over 30,000 pieces of property was assessed, and 66 attorneys or firms filed separate objections for different owners of property. On September 22, 1903, all of these objections except the one as to benefits, to be tried by a jury, came on for hearing before the respondent. The objections were diverse, and varied greatly both in their nature and as to the property for which they were made, some relating to railroad property, others to school property, and others to pieces of private property differently situated. On that day and the following one there was a preliminary call of all attorneys who had filed objections, and in order to facilitate a hearing the respondent classified the objections and set down the different classes for hearing on different days. The attorneys for relators, when called, stated that their objections were that the ordinance was not valid, that the assessment was disproportionate, and that the city was not assessed in the roll. These objections were then set for hearing, with others of the same nature, on September 25, 1903. Relators appeared by their attorneys and were heard at that time, when they asked to be heard upon one objection, which was that the ordinance was invalid because the improvement was double. They introduced evidence and presented arguments to sustain that objection, and the respondent took the objection under advisement. The relators made no objection to the separate hearings, and did not at any time present to the court any objection that the estimate of the engineer was not made a part of the record of the first resolution, nor offer any evidence on that subject. On subsequent days the respondent heard the objections of other objectors which had been set for separate hearings, and on September 30, 1903, on the hearing of another class or group of objections, the objection was made that the estimate was not made a part of the record, and evidence was offered tending to prove the fact. During the hearing of the other objections there was present in the courtroom an employé of relators' attorneys, who was watching the proceedings and reporting...