The Vill. of Byron v. Blount
| Decision Date | 20 November 1880 |
| Citation | 97 Ill. 62,1880 WL 10163 |
| Parties | THE VILLAGE OF BYRONv.JOSEPH BLOUNT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Ogle county; the Hon. ALBERT WOODCOCK, Judge, presiding.
Mr. N. C. WARNER, for the appellant.
Mr. L. F. WARNER, for the appellee.
The petition in this case avers that the president and trustees of the village of Byron, in the county of Ogle, in this State, on the 22d day of March, 1880, duly passed an ordinance establishing a street within the village, to be called Seventh street.
It is also alleged that the village authorities and appellee were unable to agree upon the amount that should be paid him as damages for his land taken for the street; and the prayer is, that on a final hearing, the just compensation to be made to appellee for the ground so taken, may be ascertained, according to law, and when such compensation is paid to him by the village, or is deposited as required by law, an order for possession of the property condemned to public use may be made by the court, and for other relief.
To this petition, appellee filed a demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and judgment for costs was rendered against petitioner, and an appeal therefrom was allowed and perfected.
It is conceded that this village has the power to establish and open streets and roads within its limits, but it is insisted that it has no power under the constitution and laws to take it without making just compensation, and that this is an effort to thus deprive appellee of this property.
The first section of the ordinance establishes the street all on appellee's land, and the second section declares that the property contiguous thereto shall be taxed one-fourth of the cost incurred in establishing and opening the same. It is claimed that this second section contravenes the constitution and the law. If this were conceded, we are at a loss to see in what manner it affects appellee's rights. The proceeding is not to confirm or to declare the ordinance valid. But the petition only asks to have the damages appellee may sustain by reason of taking his land for public use, ascertained by law, and when paid or deposited, the village be authorized to take possession, and to use it as a public street. So far as we can see, this is in strict conformity to the law, and no reason is perceived for sustaining the demurrer to the petition.
The demurrer admits the allegations of the petition to be true, but it in nowise raises the question of the constitutionality of the ordinance prescribing the amount or mode of raising the tax to pay for the damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago & A.R. Co. v. City of Pontiac
...description than such certainty as will enable a surveyor to readily find and locate the ground. Such certainty exists here. Village of Byron v. Blount, 97 Ill. 62;Newman v. City of Chicago, 153 Ill. 469, 38 N. E. 1053. The petition is alleged to be defective upon the ground that it does no......
-
City of Winchester v. Ring
...difficulty whatever, from this description, in locating it. That is all that is required. Smith v. Drainage District, supra; Village of Byron v. Blount, 97 Ill. 62. Appellant also contends that it was error to give the ninth, tenth, twelfth, eighteenth, and nineteenth instructions on behalf......
-
Vill. of Hyde Park v. George L. Thatcher A1
...either in form or substance: Village of Hyde Park v. Ingalls, 87 Ill. 11; Dunham v. Village of Hyde Park, 75 Ill. 371; Village of Byron v. Blount, 97 Ill. 62. Possession being taken, defendants in error are entitled to interest from the date of taking possession, and that is all the interes......
- Maher v. Farwell