Vill. of Ladd v. Chicago, O.&P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 11933.,11933. |
| Citation | 283 Ill. 260,119 N.E. 276 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF LADD v. CHICAGO, O. & P. RY. CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Bureau County Court; J. R. Prichard, Judge.
Petition for local improvement by the village of Ladd, to which the Chicago, Ottawa & Peoria Railway Company and others filed objections. Judgment confirming assessment, and objectors bring error. Affirmed.
Cairo A. Trimble and Perry D. Trimble, both of Princeton, for plaintiffs in error.
C. N. Hollerich, Village Atty., of Spring Valley, for defendant in error.
In July, 1917, the village of Ladd, in Bureau county, following the provisions of the Local Improvement Act, filed its petition in the county court of that county praying that the cost of improving a certain portion of Main street, in said village, might be levied, assessed, and collected by special taxation of property abutting the improvement, according to frontage. To this petition plaintiffs in error filed numerous objections. These objections, after a hearing in the county court, were overruled, and, objections as to the merits having been waived, a judgment was entered in said court confirming the assessment. From that judgment this appeal has been prosecuted.
The ordinance was for paving a certain portion of said street with vitrified brick and a concrete base. It is insisted by plaintiffs in error that the ordinance, estimate, and resolution of the board of local improvements are defective as to the construction of certain parts of said improvement, and that the ordinance is invalid in not following the specific provisions of the statute as to the division of the assessment into installments.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error contend that the estimate of cost submitted by the board of local improvements is insufficient, in that it does not include as separate items of cost all the component parts of the improvement; that it does not separately estimate the cost of excavation necessary for the catch-basins; that while the specification of the contract provide that the bid for catchbasins shall include necessary excavations, the item as to the cost of excavation is entirely lacking in the estimate. The estimate as to catch-basins provides: ‘Twelve catchbasins, complete, including one length of ten-inch vitrified tile sewer pipe set in place, at $22 each, $264.’ The specifications with reference to catch-basins provide: ‘They shall consist of a brick pit with cast-iron cover.’ Incorporated as a part of the estimate, before the separate items are set out, it is stated that the estimate includes ‘all labor and material and all other lawful expenses of said improvement.’ The only requirement of the statute as to the estimate is that it shall be itemized to the satisfaction of the board of local improvements, and this court has held that the estimate is sufficiently itemized, so far as the property owners are concerned, if it is sufficiently specific to give them a general idea of the estimated cost of the substantial component elements of the improvement; that it is not necessary for the estimate to set out in minute detail all the items of labor and material which go into the improvement; that only the substantial component elements are required in separate items. Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 452, 72 N. E. 1097;Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 352, 75 N. E. 365;City of Chicago v. Gage, 237 Ill. 328, 86 N. E. 633;Village of Oak Park v. Galt, 231 Ill. 482, 83 N. E. 212;City of Chicago v. Underwood, 258 Ill. 116, 101 N. E. 261.
In Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 230 Ill. 9, 82 N. E. 399, it was contended that the estimated cost of the improvement was insufficient because it did not include the cost of grading. This court, after laying down the rule as to the requirements of the statute as to estimates, said (230 Ill. 11, 82 N. E. 399):
In City of East St. Louis v. Vogel, 276 Ill. 490, 114 N. E. 941, it was argued that the estimate did not include the cost of the concrete footing of the curb, such footing being required by the specifications to be six inches deep by twelve inches wide. The opinion, in discussing this question, said (276 Ill. 496, 114 N. E. 944):
In City of Chicago v. Singer, 202 Ill. 75, 66 N. E. 874, it was contended that the estimate was insufficient because it did not include the cost of the earth filling required to be placed back of the curbstones as described in the ordinance, and that the estimate for such back filling should have been separate from the other estimate. The opinion said (202 Ill. 82, 66 N. E. 876):
‘The engineer's estimate does not itemize the cost of filling a space at the back of the curbstones with earth filling. It appears from such estimate the improvement will require 27,808 lineal feet of curbstones, the cost of which is estimated at 60 cents per lineal foot. The estimate submitted by the engineer includes, as is expressly stated in the estimate, ‘labor, material and all other expenses attending the same.’ It is therefore fairly to be considered that the estimate of 60 cents per lineal foot for the curbstones included not only the stones themselves, but the ‘labor, material, and all other expenses' attendant upon placing the stone in place and filling back as required by the ordinance.’
Counsel for plaintiffs in error rely as to this point especially upon the reasoning of this court in Lyman v. Town of Cicero, 222 Ill. 379, 78 N. E. 830, where the estimate was held not sufficiently itemized. In that case a cinder foundation for the curb was not referred to in the estimate although provided for in the ordinance. The opinion said (222 Ill. 383,78 N. E. 831):
‘The extent to which separate items are to be set down evidently depends upon the nature of the improvement, which may all be fairly included in one item or may consist of several.’
And this statement was approved as to estimating separate items, in MacChesney v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill. 215, 81 N. E. 410. We think the Lyman Case is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. Here there was no separate part of the material going into the work that was left out. The only part that was left out, as argued by counsel, was the work of excavating for the pit, and that was included plainly under the general statement that the estimate included all work and material necessary for the improvement. The catch-basins are substantial component elements of the improvement, but the excavations for the catch-basins are merely a part of the elements necessary for the construction of said basins and not in themselves substantial component elements of the improvement, as the term ‘component elements' has been defined in the various decisions of this court. We think every contractor or person familiar with the work would clearly understand from this estimate that the excavation for the catch-basins was a necessary part of the cost of the catch-basins.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error further argue that the ordinance creating this improvement is uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient in not specifying the exact amount of curbing to be constructed; that the specifications provide that a certain part of Main street shall be paved and curbed on each side and around the corners of street intersections, and further provide that sound curb conforming to the specifications now in place along said street shall be brought to proper line and grade, but that there is nothing in the specifications or ordinance to show how much sound curb there is or how much curb is to be constructed by the contractor. A plan and profile of the improvement was attached to and made a part of the ordinance, and should therefore be considered the same as if incorporated in full in the ordinance. City of Highwood v. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Railroad Co., 268 Ill. 482, 109 N. E. 270;City of Watseka v. Orebaugh, 266 Ill. 579, 107 N. E. 887;City of Hillsboro v. Grassel, 249 Ill. 190, 94 N. E. 48. The estimate of the cost of a proposed improvement should be read with the ordinance, in order to remove any uncertainty as to the description of the improvement and to ascertain the proper description thereof. City of Chicago v. Edens, 261 Ill. 272, 103 N. E. 996; City of Hillsboro v. Grassel, supra. The second item of the estimate provides for ‘3,100 lineal feet of concrete curb six inches by twenty inches,’ etc., giving the cost of the same. A later item of the estimate provides for ‘relining curb now in place.’ An examination of the plan...
To continue reading
Request your trial