Town of Cicero v. Andren
| Decision Date | 07 February 1907 |
| Citation | 224 Ill. 617,79 N.E. 962 |
| Parties | TOWN OF CICERO v. ANDREN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; Frank Harry, Judge.
Proceedings by the town of Cicero for an additional street assessment, to which F. M. Andren and others file objections. From a judgment sustaining objections, the town appeals. Affirmed.
John J. Sherlock (Clair D. Vallette, Fayette J. Partridge, Chester B. Masslich and Eugene Dupee, of counsel), for appellant.
Gideon S. Thompson, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county sustaining certain objections to a second supplemental assessment. The first original assessment was made under an ordinance adopted February 17, 1894, for the improvement of certain streets in the town of Cicero. A judgment of confirmation of said assessment was entered May 1, 1894, and an ordinance adopted dividing the assessment into five installments, the last of which became due May 1, 1898. This assessment was known as ‘Cicero Special Assessment No. 421.’ Proceedings for a supplemental assessment were begun in 1895. The ordinance recited that the amount of the original assessment, as modified and reduced by the court, was insufficient to pay the cost of the improvementand of making and levying the assessment, and ordered that a supplemental assessment be made for that purpose. The record does not show when the judgment of confirmation of this supplemental assessment was entered, but it was stipulated that it was prior to May 27, 1896. This assessment was known as ‘Cicero Special Assessment No. 495.’ Another ordinance was passed April 12, 1898, for a third, or second supplemental, assessment. This ordinance recited that the cost of the improvement and of making and levying the first and second assessments exceeded the amounts of said first and second assessments as modified, reduced, and confirmed, and that it was necessary to levy a third assessment for that purpose. This third, or second supplemental, assessment was confirmed as to all the property in the assessment roll except that owned by appellees. It was known as ‘Cicero Special Assessment No. 666.’ Appellees filed a number of objections in the county court to its confirmation as to their property, but at the hearing waived all of said objections except three, namely, the eighth, thirty-seventh, and thirty-eighth. The eighth objection recited that the original and first supplemental assessments were confirmed more than five years prior to the passage of the ordinance for the second supplemental assessment, and interposed the five-year statute of limitations provided in section 48, art. 9, c. 24 (Starr & C. Ann. St. 1885 [1st Ed.] p. 504), and also section 15 of the chapter on Limitations (Starr & C. Ann. St. 1885, c. 83). The thirty-seventh objection alleged that the deficiency, if any existed, was caused by the failure of the town of Cicero to pay its proportion of the cost of the improvement assessed as public benefits against the town. The thirty-eighth alleged that the report of the commissioners appointed by the town board of the town of Cicero to estimate the amount of money necessary to be realized by the supplemental assessment did not take into account the amount of the second assessment, known as ‘Cicero Special Assessment No. 495,’ which assessment had theretofore been levied and confirmed. The county court sustained these objections, and dismissed the petition for confirmation as to the property of the objectors.
The ordinance for the third assessment appointed S. D. Attridge, R. H. Traill, and C. F. Hafner commissioners to make an estimate of the additional amount of money necessary to be realized in order that, together with the amount of the first and second assessments as modified, reduced, and confirmed, there should be sufficient moneys to defray the cost of making the said improvement. Said commissioners afterwards made, to the board of trustees of the town of Cicero, a report, which, after reciting their appointment by ordinance and that the object and purpose of their appointment was ‘to make an estimate of the additional amount of moneys necessary to be realized in order that, together with the amount of the first assessment in the said ordinance mentioned, there shall be sufficient moneys to defray the cost of said improvement,’ recited that they had carefully examined the subject, and ‘we estimate the additional amount of moneys necessary to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirst v. Street Improvement District No. 120
...of the board of assessors, and without previous notice to him, is void. 160 Ill. 611; 148 Ill. 221; 170 Ill. 316; 79 N.E. 962; 71 Ark. 24; 224 Ill. 617. 4. statutory provisions limiting the cost of an improvement to twenty per centum clearly applies to the entire property of the district, n......
-
Spalding v. Macomb & W.I. Ry. Co.
...43 N. E. 589;Hinkle v. City of Mattoon, 170 Ill. 316, 48 N. E. 908;Larson v. City of Chicago, 172 Ill. 298, 50 N. E. 179;Town of Cicero v. Anderen, 79 N. E. 962. Not only the plat of 1834, but also the plat of 1831, as shown by the record, was not acknowledged in conformity with the statute......
- Pierce v. Carlock
-
Board of Commissioners of Street Improvement District No. 349 v. Little Rock
... ... The statute requires the ... appointment of three electors of the city or town, and says ... they shall constitute a board of assessment of the benefits ... It requires each ... of the three. Page & Jones, Taxation by Assessment, § ... 901; Cicero v. Andren, 224 Ill. 617, 79 ... N.E. 962; Larson v. Chicago, 172 Ill. 298, ... 50 N.E. 179; ... ...