People ex rel. Mather v. Marshall Field & Co.
Decision Date | 17 February 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 9743.,9743. |
Citation | 107 N.E. 864,266 Ill. 609 |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MATHER v. MARSHALL FIELD & CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; John P. McGoorty, Judge.
Information in the name of the People, by Maclay Hoyne, State's Attorney, on relation of Stephen T. Mather against Marshall Field & Company and others, to enjoin defendants' use and occupation of certain passageways or tunnels under Washington Street in the City of Chicago, etc. From a decree dismissing the information, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Maclay, Hoyne, State's Atty., and George P. Merrick, both of Chicago, for appellant.
Wm. H. Sexton, Corp. Counsel, and Joseph F. Grossman, both of Chicago, for appellee City of Chicago.
Tolman & Redfield, of Chicago (John P. Wilson and Edgar B. Tolman, both of Chicago, of counsel), for Marshall Field & Co.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Cook county dismissing for want of equity an information brought in the name of the people by Maclay Hoyne, state's attorney, upon the relation of Stephen T. Mather, to enjoin the use and occupation of certain passageways or tunnels under Washington street, in the city of Chicago, by Marshall Field & Co., and to restrain the city of Chicago from permitting the subsurface of Washington street to be so used, and to have a certain ordinance granting such use declared null and void. The trial court certified that, the validity of a municipal ordinance being involved, the public interests required an appeal directly to this court.
The ordinance in question was passed by the city council of Chicago on November 18, 1912. It provides, among other things, as follows:
Section 3 provides that the city of Chicago shall be paid a certain compensation by Marshall Field & Co. for the first 10 years of said period, and for the last 10 years such compensation as may be determined by the city council of said city.
Section 4 provides that the work of putting in such tunnel shall be done in accordance with the plans signed by the building commissioner, commissioner of public works, and the fire marshal of said city, and under the supervision of the latter two of said officials.
Section 5 reads:
Section 6 provides that Marshall Field & Co. shall give a bond of $100,000 to the city of Chicago to secure the faithful performance by said company of the contract and to indemnify said city against all loss, damage, or expense of any kind under it.
Section 7 provides that before putting in the tunnel Marshall Field & Co. shall provide for the care and adjustment, under the direction of the commissioner of public works and to his satisfaction, of the sewers, water pipes, electric light conduits, and other public utilities in that portion of Washington street covered by the ordinance, at the expense of said company.
And section 8 provides that Marshall Field & Co. shall not prevent or delay any revocation of said ordinance by the mayor or city council by any action at law or in chancery.
The cause was heard by the chancellor on amended bill and answers. From the pleadings and proof introduced, it appears that the title to Washington street is in the city; that the subsurface of the street at the point in question is now, and has been for years, used for public utilities, including sewers, water pipes, gas mains, gas pipes, electric light wires, and conduits; that some 52,800 cubic feet of space are taken for said tunnels and they occupy under said street 4,800 square feet of superficial area; that the tunnels, at the time of the hearing below, were practically completedat a cost of about $70,000 and were then being used and occupied in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance; that the upper tunnel, situated halfway between Wabash avenue and Holden court, was 80 feet in width and 9 feet and 2 inches in height, the bottom being 15 feet below the surface of the ground; that the lower or subbasement tunnel, located substantially under the east half of Holden court if extended across Washington street, was 20 feet in width and 14 feet in depth the bottom being 27 feet below the surface of the street; that while said tunnels were being constructed, or thereafter, the grantee at its own expense, under the direction of the city officials and working with the officials of the various public utility companies affected, had changed the gas mains, gas pipe, electric light wires, telephone wires, conduits, etc., and placed them above the upper tunnel but below the surface of the street. It further appears from the record that under the supervision of the city authorities Marshall Field & Co. had changed the six-inch water pipe in the street, which theretofore was laid at grade about six feet below the surface at this point, so that it ran down one side of the upper tunnel and under and then up the other side, so that the water would run through the bend somewhat on the principle of a siphon. It further appears that, before these tunnels were constructed, Holden court at this point, where it crossed Washington street, was the summit of a sewer in that street, so that the sewage in the sewer east of Holden court would run towards Wabash avenue and the sewage in the sewer west of Holden court would run west to State street; that the grade, however, of the sewer at Holden court in either direction was very slight; that in constructing the upper tunnel Marshall Field & Co., under the supervision of the city, cut out the section of the sewer from Holden court to the east side of said upper tunnel and blocked or stopped the end of the sewer west of Holden court and the end of that part of the sewer remaining east of said upper tunnel, leaving that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yale Univ. v. City of New Haven
...to an owner upon both sides of the highway to build a structure across it depends upon what is reasonable (People ex rel. v. Field & Co., 266 Ill. 609, 618, 107 N. E. 864, L. R. A. 1915F, 937, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 743), and that is to be tested by the standard of every age, as Justice Baldwin s......
-
Yale University v. City of New Haven
......126, 127 N.E. 383, 385, 9 A.L.R. 1629;. Field v. Barling, 149 Ill. 556, 37 N.E. 850, 24. L.R.A. 406, 41 ... State v. Merrit, 35. Conn. 314; People ex rel. v. Stover, 145 A.D. 259,. 261, 130 N.Y.S. 92; ......
-
Gerstley v. Globe Wernicke Co.
......People v. Harris, 203 Ill. 272, 67 N. E. 785,96 Am. St. Rep. ...91, 50 N. E. 256,40 L. R. A. 621;Field v. Barling, 149 Ill. 556, 37 N. E. 850,24 L. R. A. 406, 41 ...The case of People v. Marshall Field & Co., 266 Ill. 609, 107 N. E. 864, L. R. A. 1915F, ......
-
Grady v. City of Greenville
...... Jones v. Houston (Tex. Civ. App.) 188 S.W. 688; People v. Marshall Field & Co., 266 Ill. 609, 107 N.E. 864, L. R. ......