Vill. of Park Ridge v. Robinson
Decision Date | 25 October 1902 |
Parties | VILLAGE OF PARK RIDGE v. ROBINSON. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Action by Silas W. Robinson against the village of Park Ridge. Judgment for defendant was reversed by the appellate court (100 Ill. App. 409), and defendant appeals. Reversed.Black & Black and Joseph A. Phelps, for appellant.
Charles H. Baldwin, for appellee.
Silas W. Robinson, the appellee, brought this action in assumpsit in the superior court of Cook county to recover of the village of Park Ridge, the appellant, the balance of $2,968.85, which he claimed the village owed him for constructing sidewalks in said village. The case was tried by the court without a jury, by agreement, and on a stipulation of facts. Propositions to be held as law in the decision of the case were submitted on both sides, and the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and rendered judgment for the defendant. On appeal by the plaintiff the appellate court reversed the judgment, and entered judgment of its own in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the amount claimed.
The facts agreed upon were, in substance, that the president and trustees of the village on June 23, 1894, passed an ordinance providing for the construction of sidewalks on certain streets of the village, which, after describing the location and character of the walk to be constructed (concerning which there is no dispute), was as follows:
The work having been let to Robinson on his bid, a written contract was entered into, duly executed between him and the village, reciting the ordinance in full, and which contract contained, among others, these provisions:
After the completion of the work, warrants, 11 in number, were issued to Robinson, part in 1894 and part in 1895. The village collector collected $647.16 of the lot owners, which amount was paid to Robinson on said warrants, reducing the total to the amount sued for. Said warrants were duly executed and signed by Robinson, and were all substantially the same, to wit:
The county court, on objections filed to the rendition of judgment against delinquent lots, held said ordinance to be void, and sustained the objection. Afterward, in August, 1895, the village passed another ordinance, purporting to amend said first-named ordinance, and to levy a special assessment to pay the cost of said work, which had theretofore been completed, under article 9 of the act of 1872 for the incorporation of cities and villages. Afterward the county court sustained objections to the confirmation of the special assessment levied under the lastnamed ordinance, and refused judgment thereon, and the petition was dismissed by the court.
It was further stipulated that shortly before this suit was begun an appointment was made between the plaintiff's attorney and the village board for a meeting to devise ways and means to enforce payment from the lot owners, and to effect a settlement of the differences arising out of the failure to collect such tax; but such attorney was unable to keep the appointment, and the board passed the following resolution, and caused a copy of it to be sent to such attorney, to wit: ‘Resolved, that said village of Park Ridge, still being very desirous to have said indebtedness, if any exists, fully paid and satisfied, it is still ready to receive any suggestion, advice, and assistance from said plaintiff, or from any other person interested in the recovery of said indebtedness or other proceeding which may be instituted for that purpose, and render any practicable assistance and exercise any power vested in it to that end, and it does hereby urgently solicit such suggestions, advice, and assistance.’ But no meeting was had, and soon thereafter the suit was begun. It was further stipulated ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGilvery v. City of Lewiston
... ... ( Vreeland v ... Mayor, 58 N.J.L. 126, 32 At. 68; In re Park Ave ... Sewer, 169 Pa. 433, 32 A. 574; In re Sewer on Beach wood ... Clark Co., 96 U.S. 211, 24 L.Ed. 628; ... Village of Park Ridge v. Robinson, 198 Ill. 571, 92 ... Am. St. Rep. 276, 65 N.E. 104; Second ... ...
-
Henning v. City of Casper
... ... City of ... Chicago, (Ill.) 65 N.E. 103; Village v. Robinson, ... (Ill.) 65 N.E. 104; City v. Foster, (Ill.) 69 ... N.E. 783; ... ...
-
St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. v. Martineau
... ... 1043, 1057; Soule v. Seattle, 6 ... Wash. 315, 33 P. 384; Park Ridge v. Robinson, 198 ... Ill. 571, 92 Am. St. Rep. 276, 65 N.E. 104; ... ...
-
Broad v. City of Moscow
... ... 327; Maher v. City of ... Chicago, 38 Ill. 266; Village of Park Ridge v ... Robinson, 198 Ill. 571, 92 Am. St. Rep. 276, 65 N.E ... ...