Thomas Hulbert v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 14 May 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 248,248 |
| Citation | 50 L.Ed. 1026,202 U.S. 275,26 S.Ct. 617 |
| Parties | THOMAS H. HULBERT, Plff. in Err. , v. CITY OF CHICAGO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George W. Wilbur for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted] Messrs. James Hamilton Lewis, Charles H. Mitchell, and Frank Johnston, Jr., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 276-278 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
Error to the judgment of the supreme court of the state of Illinois affirming a judgment of the county court of Cook county, confirming an assessment to defray the cost of paving a street in the city of Chicago.
The proceeding was commenced by a petition filed by the city in the county court of Cook county, in accordance with law of the state. The petition recited an ordinance of the city providing for the improvement of the street, and prayed 'that steps be taken to levy a special assessment for said improvements in accordance with the provisions of said ordinance, and in the manner prescribed by law.'
An order was made in accordance with the prayer. An assessment and report thereon were duly made with an assessment roll attached, which exhibited the property of plaintiff in error as assessed and the amount for which it was assessed.
In pursuance of notice given to all parties to file objections to the confirming of the assessment roll, plaintiff in error filed objections thereto. Among his objections were the following:
'Said act concerning local improvements, passed June 14, 1897, and all amendments thereto, are not only contrary to the Constitution of Illinois, but they are also contrary to the Constitution of the United States and to the 14th Amendment thereof.
'Said act concerning local improvements, said ordinance, which is the basis of the present proceedings, and all documents and orders relating thereto, are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and to the 14th Amendment thereof, because such act, ordinance, document, and orders seek to deprive objector of property without due process of law.
'Said ordinance and proceedings are in other respects illegal, unconstitutional, and void.
The case came on for hearing before the court, the right of a jury on the question of benefits having been expressly waived.
Petitioner (defendant in error) introduced the petition, assessment roll, and notice. They were received in evidence, though objected to as not complying with or meeting the requirements of the statute.
Plaintiff in error, to sustain the issues 'on the question of the legal objections,' offered in evidence the various resolutions and proceedings before the board of local improvements. They are set out in the record, but it is not necessary to quote them. No other evidence was offered. The court overruled the objections.
On the question of benefits the same evidence was offered by the respective parties. Plaintiff in error objected to the documents offered by the city, on the ground that the ordinance was illegal and void, because the first resolution of the board of local improvements in regard to assessments did not contain an itemized estimate of the cost of the improvements, made by the engineer, in the manner and form required by the statute.
The objection was overruled and the assessment confirmed, with some modification, not necessary to notice. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state.
The bill of exceptions shows that plaintiff in error did not bring to the attention of the trial court that the act of the state under which the assessment was made, or any of the proceed- ings were contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor did he assign as error on appeal to the supreme court that the rulings of the trial court or its judgments infringed that amendment.
All the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. State of North Carolina
...573, 12 S.Ct. 757, 36 L.Ed. 546; Jacobi v. State of Alabama, 187 U.S. 133, 23 S.Ct. 48, 47 L.Ed. 106; Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 202 U.S. 275, 281, 26 S.Ct. 617, 618, 50 L.Ed. 1026; Newman v. Gates, 204 U.S. 89, 27 S.Ct. 220, 51 L.Ed. 385; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McDonald, 214 U.S......
-
Williams v. State Georgia
...when the federal questions are not seasonably raised in accordance with the requirements of state law. Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 1906, 202 U.S. 275, 26 S.Ct. 617, 50 L.Ed. 1026; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 1903, 188 U.S. 291, 308, 23 S.Ct. 375, 378, 47 L.Ed. 480. Noncompliance with su......
-
Beck v. Alabama
...or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had . . . ." In Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U.S. 275, 280, 26 S.Ct. 617, 618, 50 L.Ed. 1026 (1906), this Court said: "It is urged that in the writ of error and petition for citation it is stated that certain rights......
-
Nostrand v. Little, 34451
...to consider it in the first instance here. Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 216, 236, 20 L.Ed. 882; Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 202 U.S. 275, 280, 281, 26 S.Ct. 617, 50 L.Ed. 1026; Dorrance v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 287 U.S. 660, 53 S.Ct. 222, 77 L.Ed. 570; Chandler v. Manifold, 290 U.S.......