Prescott v. the Bd. of Trustees of The Ill.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Parties | ELI S. PRESCOTT et al., Plaintiffs in Error,v.THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
19 Ill. 324
1857 WL 5716 (Ill.)
9 Peck (IL) 324
ELI S. PRESCOTT et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, Defendants in Error.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
December Term, 1857.
The third section of the act entitled “An Act in relation to the Illinois and Michigan canal and canal lands, approved February 14, 1851,” authorizing a re-appraisement of canal lands, is not in force, and the re-appraisement under said section is without effect.
The Supreme Court will look behind a printed statute to the journals, to ascertain whether it has a legal existence.
THIS was a case submitted to the Cook Circuit Court, on an agreed statement of facts, of which the following is a substantial statement:
Prescott and Arnold owned pre-emptions, or, in other words, were entitled to purchase, at the appraisal, lots one, two, three and four, and also parts of seven and eight, in block seven, in the original town of Chicago.
These lots had been appraised twice, and the question submitted was, whether Prescott and Arnold should pay at the first or second appraisal.
By the law of 21st February, 1843, and as amended March 4, 1843, the owners of improvements made upon canal lands and lots, prior to 1st December, 1842, were entitled to purchase the lands and lots on which such improvements were situated, at an appraisal.
Improvements were made on the said lots previous to 1st December, 1842, and pre-emption rights acquired, of which Prescott and Arnold were the owners at the time said lots were offered for sale.
On the 28th day of August, 1848, said lots were duly appraised by Joel A. Matteson, Francis C. Sherman, and William Reddick, in conformity with law, as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦Lot 1, block 7,¦$2,500,¦Lot 4, block 7,¦$2,500,¦
+---------------+-------+---------------+-------¦
¦Lot 2, block 7,¦2,000, ¦Lot 7, block 7,¦800, ¦
+---------------+-------+---------------+-------¦
¦Lot 3, block 7,¦2,000, ¦Lot 8, block 7,¦1,000. ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
[19 Ill. 325]
Said lots were not offered for sale until 1855. When said lots were offered for sale, said Prescott and Arnold, having previously filed proof, in due form, of their right to purchase at the appraisal, where the owners of the improvements, and entitled to purchase the same at the appraisal.When said lots were offered, said Prescott and Arnold tendered the amount of such appraisal, in conformity to the rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohn v. Kingsley
...... must be sustained or fall. ( Spangler v. Jacoby, 14. Ill. 297, 58 Am. Dec. 571, and note; Santa Clara Railroad Tax. Case, 9 Saw. 165, 18 F. 385; Hunt v. ... v. Griffith , 60 Ala. 361; Blessing v. City of. Galveston , 42 Tex. 641; Prescott v. Board of. Trustees , 19 Ill. 324. In McCulloch v. State,. supra , it was held: "Where the ......
-
Erickson v. Cass Cnty.
...signature, from the bill passed by the two houses, there is difficulty in saying that it has been concurred in by all. Prescott v. Board, 19 Ill. 324. And under our constitution the title is not only important, but it is absolutely made to control; so that I do not see how any important cha......
-
Harwood v. Wentworth
...... such fact "entered upon the journals.". . . See. Shuley Co. v. People, 25 Ill. 163; Town of South. Ottawa v. Perkins, 24 U.S. 154; People v. Starne, 35 Ill. 133, 85 Am. ...Dec. 571;. Turley v. Logan County, 17 Ill. 151; People v. Hatch, 19 Ill. 283; Prescott v. Illinois etc. Canal. Trustees, 19 Ill. 324; Schuyler County v. People, 25 Ill. 181; People ......
-
Erickson v. Cass County
...... Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41. L.Ed. 369; People v. Swigert (Ill.) 22 N.E. 787. . . But. appellants further contend that the assessments ... taxation." See, also, City of Chicago v. People, 80 Ill. 384; People v. Trustees. of Schools of Tp. 19 (Ill.) 7 N.E. 262. . . The. question as to whether ... that it has been concurred in by all. Prescott v. Board, 19 Ill. 324. And under our constitution the. title is not only important, but it is ......