Thompson v. People ex rel. Hanberg
| Decision Date | 17 February 1904 |
| Citation | 207 Ill. 334,69 N.E. 842 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. PEOPLE ex rel. HANBERG, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; L. C. Ruth, Judge.
Proceedings for the confirmation of a special assessment for street paving by the people, on the relation of John J. Hanberg, county treasurer, against William Hale Thompson. From a judgment for sale, Thompson appeals. Reversed.F. W. Becker, for appellant.
Robert Redfield and William M. Pindell (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment for sale entered in the county court of Cook county to satisfy the first installment of a special assessment for paving West Van Buren street from South Paulina street to South Kinzie avenue, in the city of Chicago. The appellant appeared and filed objections. The validity of the judgment confirming the original assessment was before this court at a former term (Thompson v. City of Chicago, 197 Ill. 599, 64 N. E. 392), when the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded.
It is first contended that the judgment of confirmation upon which this judgment for sale is based is void for the reason that the county court was without jurisdiction to render the judgment of confirmation on the ground that the proceedings to confirm said special assessment, after the judgment confirming the same had been reversed by this court, was redocketed in the county court without proper notice to the appellant. The judgment of confirmation entered after the case was redocketed recites that due notice to redocket the proceedings had been given the appellant. We are of the opinion that finding was not overcome by the fact that a notice to redocket, found among the files in that proceeding, states that a motion to redocket the proceedings would be made on the 25th of July, 1902, and that the record shows the order redocketing the proceedings was not entered until the following day. In that state of the record the court, in case of a collateral attack upon the judgment of confirmation, will presume that the motion to redocket the proceedings was made on the 25th of July, and that action was deferred thereon until the following day, when the order redocketing the case was duly entered, and that the court, by reason of such delay, did not lose jurisdiction to enter the order redocketing the case. The lack of jurisdiction must appear upon the face of the record in the confirmation proceeding, otherwise such lack of jurisdiction cannot be taken advantage of in a collateral proceeding. Dickey v. People, 160 Ill. 633, 43 N. E. 606;Casey v. People, 165 Ill. 49, 46 N. E. 7;Young v. People, 171 Ill. 299, 49 N. E. 503.
The original judgment of confirmation was reversed by this court by reason of the fact that the estimate of the cost of the improvement contained an item of 6 per cent. of the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharp v. Sharp
...be shown by proof aliunde. People v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N. E. 1044;People v. Martin, 243 Ill. 284, 90 N. E. 699;Thompson v. People, 207 Ill. 334, 69 N. E. 842;Rivard v. Gardner, 39 Ill. 125. There is in this decree the finding of the court that it had jurisdiction of the subject-matt......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...rel. Stuckart v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N.E. 1044; People ex rel. McCall v. Martin, 243 Ill. 284, 90 N.E. 699; Thompson v. People ex rel. Hanberg, 207 Ill. 334, 69 N.E. 842. * * * * * 'From a consideration of these various cases, the definition of 'record,' 'record proper,' or 'complete ......
-
Cullen v. Stevens
...rel. Stuckart v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N.E. 1044;People ex rel. McCall v. Martin, 243 Ill. 284, 90 N.E. 699;Thompson v. People ex rel. Hanberg, 207 Ill. 334, 69 N.E. 842. The principal remaining question in this case, therefore, is, What is the ‘entire record’? Does it include the certi......
- Gage v. People ex rel. Hanberg