People v. City of Le Roy

Decision Date16 June 1920
Docket NumberNo. 13287.,13287.
Citation293 Ill. 278,127 N.E. 695
PartiesPEOPLE v. CITY OF LE ROY.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, McLean County; Sain Welty, Judge.

Information in the nature of quo warranto by the People of the State of Illinois against the City of Le Roy. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.Miles K. Young, State's Atty., and A. E. & R. C. De Mange, all of Bloomington, for the People.

Leslie J. Owen, of Le Roy, and Barry & Morrissey, of Bloomington, for defendant in error.

DUNN, J.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment of the circuit court of McLean county in favor of the defendant to an information in the nature of quo warranto. The information, which was filed on August 14, 1918, charged that the city of Le Roy had been unlawfully exercising corporate powers for 13 years last past over a certain tract of land of about 8 1/2 acres which was not within the corporate limits of the city, by assessing, levying, and collecting taxes on said territory for the support of the city government and special assessments for local improvements constructed by the city, and had otherwise exercised corporate jurisdiction over said territory without warrant of law. The defendant filed two pleas. The plaintiff replied to the first and demurred to the second. The demurrer was overruled, and, the plaintiff having elected to stand by it, final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The sole question, therefore, is the sufficiency of this plea.

The plea alleged that on May 31, 1904, Barley & Pfitzenmeyer made a written offer to the defendant, at a special meeting of the city council, that if it would construct water mains in certain streets and extensions they would furnish certain other water mains without expense to the city to form a complete circuit; that the council voted to accept the proposition, provided that Barley & Pfitzenmeyer would incorporate certain land within the city; that Barley & Pfitzenmeyer, who were then the owners of the land described in the information, thereupon caused it to be surveyed and platted as Barley & Pfitzenmeyer's East Park addition to Le Roy, and on June 13, 1904, at a regular meeting of the city council, presented the plat, together with their certificate thereto signed and acknowledged and the certificate of the surveyor, and it was moved and carried that the territory be and the same is hereby received into the corporate limits of the city of Le Roy; that thereupon the mayor and city clerk attached a certificate to said plat to the effect that said addition and plat had been approved by the city council, and the plat, with the accompanying certificates, was recorded in the recorder's office of the county; that the water pipes were laid as provided for; that Barley & Pfitzenmeyer conveyed portions of the premises from time to time, describing them in all their deeds as lots in Barley & Pfitzenmeyer's East Park addition to the city of Le Roy, and all of the present owners acquired title by such description; that on March 27, 1908, all of the owners of said premises brought suit to quiet title to the land, describing the separate tracts in the same way, and thereafter a decree was entered quieting title by the same description; that the city, after June, 1904, annually levied taxes against said premises by number of the lot and block in Barley & Pfitzenmeyer's East Park addition to Le Roy, and the taxes were voluntarily paid by the respective owners without objection until 1915, when two of the owners objected to taxes of that year; that ever since June 13, 1904, the city has recognized and treated said premises as a part of the city, has lighted, worked, and graded the streets and cut the weeds in them; that in 1914 it constructed a general system of sewers for the entire city, the cost of which was assessed against the real estate in the city, including the several lots in said addition, under the Local Improvement Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 24, §§ 507-605c), and the assessments were paid by the respective owners of the lots; that in 1915 the city constructed a lateral sewer running the entire length of Center street, through the addition, under the Local Improvement Act, and its cost was assessed, under the Local Improvement Act, by lot and block number in the addition, and that the assessments were paid by the respective owners of said lots; that in 1915 Center and Park streets, in said addition, were paved by special assessment under the Local Improvement Act, and paving bonds were issued in accordance with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., 34073.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 1936
    ...284 S.W. 135; State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo. App. 146; State ex rel. Letchner v. Dearing, 253 Mo. 605; People v. City of Le Roy, 293 Ill. 278, 127 N.E. 695. (2) This court should dismiss this action because of the pendency of a suit in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals ......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 1932
    ...View v. Farmers Tel. Exch. Co., 294 Mo. 623, 243 S.W. 153; State v. Oconto Elec. Co., 165 Wis. 467, 161 N.W. 789; People v. City of Le Roy, 293 Ill. 278, 127 N.E. 695; People v. Jackson, 305 Ill. 385, 137 N.E. 237; People v. Arnett, 317 Ill. 425, 148 N.E. 306; State ex rel. School Dist. v. ......
  • State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 1936
    ... ... Util. Co., 53 S.W.2d 394, 331 Mo ... 337; State ex rel. McAllister v. Cupples Station L., H. & P. Co., 283 Mo. 115; State ex inf. v. School District, ... 284 S.W. 135; State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 ... Mo.App. 146; State ex rel. Letchner v. Dearing, 253 ... Mo. 605; People v. City of Le Roy, 293 Ill. 278, 127 ... N.E. 695. (2) This court should dismiss this action because ... of the pendency of a suit in the United States Circuit Court ... of Appeals concerning and affecting the same subject matter ... Kansas City Gas Co. v. Kansas City, 198 F. 500; ... ...
  • State ex inf. Shartel, ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 1932
    ... ... will cease at the expiration of the term. 26 C. J. 1040; ... Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58, 33 ... S.Ct. 988, 57 L.Ed. 1389; Detroit United Ry. Co. v ... Detroit, 229 U.S. 39; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v ... Ingraham, 228 F. 392; People v. Lawley, 17 ... Cal.App. 331, 119 P. 1089; Smith v. Osceola, 178 ... Iowa 200, 159 N.W. 648; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar ... Rapids, 118 Iowa 234; Grand Rapids Bridge Co. v ... Prange, 35 Mich. 400, 24 Am. St. Rep. 585; State v ... Northern Ohio Traction Co., 34 Ohio Cir. Ct ... ...
  • 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