Van Nada v. Goedde

• Decision Date: 23 April 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9199.,9199.
• Parties: VAN NADA et al. v. GOEDDE et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

263 Ill. 105

104 N.E. 1072

VAN NADA et al.

v.GOEDDE et al.

No. 9199.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; George A. Crow, Judge.

Action by Charles R. Van Nada and others against Edmund Goedde and others. From a judgment on demurrer for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

D. J. Sullivan, of East St. Louis, for appellants.

A. H. Baer, of Belleville, for appellee Dunlap-Dippold Co.

Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, of East St. Louis, for other appellees.

CRAIG, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair county sustaining a demurrer to a bill for injunction filed by appellants, praying that the acts of appellees, the East St. Louis Park District, the board of local improvements of said park district, and the park commissioners of said park district, done in an attempt to construct a local improvement in North boulevard of said park district by special assessment, and all acts done in furtherance of such attempts to so construct said improvement and to levy special assessments for the payment of costs of such improvement, be declared null and void, and the park authorities of said park district be enjoined from entering into a contract for the making of such improvement.

The facts relied upon in the bill of complaint are that the appellants, Charles R. Van Nada and W. E. Williams, own property within the East St. Louis Park district, in the county of St. Clair and state of Illinois; that the said park district is a public corporation organized and existing under an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the organization of park districts and the transfer of submerged lands to those bordering on navigable bodies of water,’ approved June 24, 1895, and in force July 1, 1895; that the said park district lies wholly within the said county of St. Clair, and is partly within the city of East St. Louis and partly within the townships of Centerville Station and Canteen, in said county; that by an act of the General Assembly entitled ‘An act to enable park commissioners or park authorities to make local improvements and provide for the payment thereof,’ approved June 24, 1895, and in force July 1, 1895, in connection with the provisions of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois in reference to the construction of local improvements by special assessments, the Legislature attempted to confer upon park districts the right to levy special assessments upon the property benefited, for the purpose of making local improvements within such districts; that pursuant to the acts above mentioned, the said park district, acting through its authorized corporate authorities, determined to improve one of its public boulevards, known as North boulevard, and in the furtherance of such determination the corporate authorities of such park district provided for the improvement of said boulevard by an ordinance duly passed and entered upon its records. The bill recites the further steps taken by said park district, including the filing of a petition by the corporate authorities thereof in the county court of St. Clair county, the compliance by said park district with the requirement of the Local Improvement Act with reference to apportioning the cost of the improvement, making an assessment roll, and all preliminary steps required to be taken to have such assessment approved by the court, and the entry of an order by said court confirming the report of the commissioners in said proceeding, and entering judgment against the property set forth in said assessment roll as amended by the court; that appellant Charles R. Van Nada is the owner, in fee simple, of lot 2 of Block 19 of Washington Park subdivision, as per plat thereof of record in the recorder's office of St. Clair county, Ill., which said lot is contiguous to said improvement and within said park district, and that said park district has attempted to assess said lot the sum of $189.78 for the construction of said improvement; that the appellant W. E. Williams is the owner, in fee simple, of lots 6 and 7 in block 9 of East Lansdowne subdivision (now part of the city of East St. Louis), which said lots are contiguous to said improvement and within said park district, and that said park district has attempted to assess said lots the sum of $35.60 for the construction of said improvement; that appellants are also the owners of other real estate in said park district which will be assessed for general taxes to pay the amount of said improvement assessed against the park district itself; that the amount of the cost of said improvement so confirmed against said park district by the judgment of the county court is $15,391.12; that the amount so confirmed against said lot 2, owned by appellant Charles R. Van Nada, is $189.78, and the amount confirmed against said lots 6 and 7, owned by appellant W. E. Williams, is $35.60, which amounts so severally assessed against said property would appear by said judgment of confirmation to be a lien upon the said respective properties of appellants, and clouds upon their respective titles; that the amounts so assessed against the said district would also be a charge upon appellants' properties in said district, to be paid by general taxation.

Appellants contend that the act under which the said park district is organized, in so far as it attempts to confer upon such municipalities the power to make local improvements by special assessment, is unconstitutional and void; that the acts of the said park district, and each and every one of them, done in the furtherance of the attempt to construct said local improvement by special assessment, are unconstitutional and void; that the county court was without jurisdiction to render its said judgment of confirmation, and that said judgment is void; that by reason thereof the said assessment so attempted to be made a lien upon appellants' respective properties, and the amount so charged against the park district itself, are illegal and unauthorized, and that the contract about to be entered into upon the part of the said park district is also illegal and unauthorized and should be restrained and enjoined.

The defendants demurred to said bill. The court sustained the demurrer, and, the appellants electing to stand by their bill, the court dissolved the temporary injunction previously issued in said cause and dismissed the bill for want of equity. From the decree so rendered appellants have taken this appeal, and ask a reversal of the decree of the circuit court, and that this court enter a proper decree upon the facts admitted by such demurrer, or that it reverse the decree and remand said cause, with directions to the circuit court to overrule said demurrer.

[1] It appears from the bill filed in this case that the park district in question includes part of the territory of the city of East St. Louis and part of the townships of Centerville Station and Canteen. The sole contention of appellants is that the park district, as organized, has no power or authority to make local improvements to be paid for by special assessments, and that the legislative enactment under which the park district in question was organized, and which purports to give such park district the power to levy assessments, is unconstitutional. Appellants rely upon section 9 of article 9 of the Constitution of 1870, which is as follows: ‘The General Assembly may vest the corporate authorities of cities, towns and villages with power to make local improvements by special assessment, or by special taxation of contiguous property, or otherwise. For all other corporate purposes, all municipal corporations may be vested with authority to assess and collect taxes; but such taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property, within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same.’ Counsel for appellants also insist that the word ‘towns,’ as it occurs in said section 9 of the Constitution, means incorporated towns or villages, as distinguished from townships in counties under township organization, and that an improvement must be wholly within the limits and under the control of one municipality in order to be a local improvement that may be constructed by special assessment, as the term ‘local improvement’ is used in the statute.

The appellee park district is organized...