Ricketts v. the Vill. of Hyde Park.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9495,85 Ill. 110
• Parties: THOMAS H. RICKETTSv.THE VILLAGE OF HYDE PARK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

85 Ill. 110

1877 WL 9495 (Ill.)

THOMAS H. RICKETTS

v.THE VILLAGE OF HYDE PARK.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.

This was a proceeding, under an ordinance of the village of Hyde Park, for a special assessment for a certain public improvement in that village. The notice in respect to the proceeding was published in a weekly newspaper called the ““South Side News.” Objection was made that the newspaper mentioned was not published in the village of Hyde Park, but elsewhere. On this subject S. Vansant testified, that he was the publisher of the newspaper, the “South Side News,” and that the type of said paper was set, and the printing actually done, in the city of Chicago. But said paper upon its face had printed that it was printed and published in the village of Hyde Park, as a local paper, to meet the wants of said village. It is mailed to subscribers at the post office in the village of Hyde Park, and the city of Chicago, in about equal numbers. The weekly circulation of said paper is about one thousand copies.

Other facts involved in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion.

A trial resulting in a judgment against the land sought to be assessed, an appeal was taken to this court.

Mr. L. D. CONDEE, for the appellant.

Mr. CONSIDER H. WILLETT, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a proceeding for a special assessment, by the village of Hyde Park, for laying and constructing water supplypipe.

It is objected, the ordinance under which the proceeding assumes to be carried on, is void, because it provides for two separate and distinct improvements. The objection is not tenable. The supply-pipe provided for on 45th street, runs west three blocks from Cottage Grove avenue, to Langley avenue, and two blocks north on Langley avenue to 43d street. It forms a right angle at 45th street and Langley avenue. Its east and north ends make connection with pipe on Cottage Grove avenue and 43d street, thus forming a circuit. The evidence shows that “it is important to make this circuit, in order to keep the water pure and fresh.” Each part, therefore, is necessary to the end in view, and all complete a single improvement. The case is entirely different, in that regard, from Weckler v. Chicago, 61 Ill. 145. See People ex rel. etc. v. Sherman et al. 83 Ill. 165, where a like ruling obtained.

Another objection urged is, that the ordinance provides that the improvement shall be wholly by special assessment, which, it is claimed, is repugnant to § 24, art. 9, chap. 24, Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 235. That section relates only to the duty of commissioners appointed under § 23; and it neither is, nor purports to be, a limitation upon the corporate authorities in respect to the mode by which local improvements shall be made. It is expressly provided by § 1 of the same article, that the corporate authorities of cities and villages are thereby “vested with power to make local improvements by special assessment, or by special taxation, or both, of contiguous property, or general taxation, or otherwise, as they shall by ordinance prescribe.”

Again, it is objected that the assessment is to pay for work already done; and this, it is insisted, is beyond the corporate power.

We see no reason why the assessment may not be for work already done in good faith, by the corporate authority, or under its direction, in anticipation of the special assessment. This would seem to be clearly contemplated by the 49th section of the same article before referred to, which provides: “All persons taking any contract with the city or...