Village of Morgan Park v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 03 October 1912 |
| Citation | 255 Ill. 190,99 N.E. 388 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF MORGAN PARK v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Charles M. Walker, Judge.
Suit by the Village of Morgan Park against the City of Chicago. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William H. Sexton, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (Leon Hornstein, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
I. T. Greenacre, Enoch J. Price, and Alice Greenacre, all of Chicago, for appellee.
By virtue of the statute authorizing the annexation of any city, incorporated village, or town to any other incorporated city, village, or town adjoining the same, an election was held on April 4, 1911, in the city of Chicago and the village of Morgan Park, pursuant to the order of the judge of the county court of Cook county, on a proposition for the annexation of the village to the city. The judge of the county court and other officials canvassed the returns of the election, and declared the result to be in favor of the annexation. The city took possession of some of the property of the village and assumed to exercise jurisdiction over the territory of the village as a part of the city. The village filed its bill in the circuit court of Cook county against the city, praying for an injunction restraining the city from seizing and carrying away property of the village or assuming authority to exercise jurisdiction over the property affairs of the village, and to control the government of its territory. The city answered, relying upon the proceeding for annexation as its authority for assuming jurisdiction over the property and affairs which had belonged to the village and to control the government of the territory previously included within the village. There was a general replication, the cause was heard by the chancellor, and the city was perpetually enjoined and restrained, in accordance with the prayer of the bill, by a final decree, from which the city appealed.
The village of Morgan Park was organized in 1882 under the general act for the incorporation of cities, villages, and towns, and was situated partly in the town of Worth and partly in the town of Calumet-towns of Cook county organized under the Township Organization law. The city of Chicago was east of the village and the north and south portions of the village adjoined the city, with a common boundary line between the two. The city and village did not adjoin each other near the center, and their territory was not contiguous for a considerable distance. The boundary lines of the village and city were not the same for a distance of 1 3/4 miles, and lying between the village and city there was an area of 200 acres of land which was unincorporated territory of the town of Calumet and commonly called ‘No Man's Land.’ If the village should be annexed to the city and become a part thereof, there would be within the city, and entirely surrounded by it, a tract of land of 200 acres, 1/2 mile wide at the north end and 1/8 of a mile wide at the south end, not within the jurisdiction of the city.
[1] The statutory authority to annex territory to a city, town, or village is limited to such territory as is contiguous to the city, town, or village, and no incorporated city, town, or village can be annexed to another unless they adjoin each other. The words employed in the statute which specify the location of two incorporations in relation to each other have no arbitrary meaning or definition, and their meaning must be determined by the object sought to be accomplished by the statute. Where the word ‘adjacent’ was used in the statute with respect to school districts, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red River Valley Brick Co. v. City of Grand Forks
... ... Co. v. Soucie) 9 N.D. 346, 50 L.R.A. 262, 83 N.W. 212; ... Chicago" & N.W. R. Co. v. Rolfson, 23 S.D. 405, 122 N.W. 344 ... \xC2" ... S.E. 247; Roswell v. Ezzard, 128 Ga. 43, 57 S.E ... 114; Hyde Park v. Chicago, 124 Ill. 156, 16 N.E ... 222; East Springfield v. eld, 238 Ill. 534, ... 87 N.E. 349; Morgan Park v. Chicago, 255 Ill. 190, ... 99 N.E. 388, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 399; ... 222, the ... validity of an attempted annexation of the village of Hyde ... Park to the city of Chicago was considered and passed upon, ... ...
-
Red River Valley Brick Co. v. City of Grand Forks
...relief. That injunction will lie, see, also, East Springfield v. Springfield, 238 Ill. 534, 87 N. E. 349, and Village of Morgan Park v. City of Chicago, 255 Ill. 190, 99 N. E. 388. The above are a few of the authorities sustaining the contention of respondent that injunction is a proper rem......
-
Petition to Annex Certain Territory to Village of North Barrington, In re
...where the land to be annexed consists of contiguous parcels and is contiguous to the municipality. (Village of Morgan Park v. City of Chicago (1912), 255 Ill. 190, 192-94, 99 N.E. 388; Western National Bank v. Village of Kildeer (1960), 19 Ill.2d 342, 351, 167 N.E.2d 169; People ex rel. Cou......
-
People ex rel. Taylor v. Camargo Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 158
...boundary line, but for a considerable distance there was an area of 200 acres of unincorporated territory. Village of Morgan Park v. City of Chicago, 255 Ill. 190, 99 N. E. 388. In Perry County v. Jefferson County, 94 Ill. 214, by a literal following of the language of the act there under c......