Village of Northbrook v. Sterba

• Decision Date: 28 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16591.,16591.
• Citation: 318 Ill. 360,149 N.E. 258
• Parties: VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK v. STERBA et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

318 Ill. 360

149 N.E. 258

VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK

v.STERBA et al.

No. 16591.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1925.

Proceeding in the county court by the Village of Northbrook, petitioning for a levy of special assessments for street improvement. From the judgment rendered, Charles Sterba and another, as objectors, appeal.

Affirmed.

Thompson, J., dissenting.Appeal from Cook County Court; S. N. Hoover, Judge.

Morton T. Culver, of Chicago, for appellants.

Langworthy, Stevens & McKeag, of Chicago, for appellee.

De YOUNG, J.

On August 4, 1924, the president and board of trustees of the village of Northbrook, in Cook county, passed an ordinance for draining, grading, curbing, and paving Shermer avenue, Shermerville road, and Walters avenue between certain termini, except the central 18 feet of parts of Shermer avenue and Shermerville road, for the grading and paving of which, the ordinance recites, the state of Illinois and the county of Cook had entered into a contract. A petition setting forth the passage of the ordinance and the approval of the estimate of the cost of the improvement and of the recommendation of the board of local improvements, and praying that steps be taken to levy a special assessment in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, was filed in the county court of Cook county. Objections were interposed to the assessment. Upon successive hearings all the legal objections were overruled, the assessment was reduced upon a certain parcel of land, and confirmed as to all other property. Charles Sterba and Anthony Batek, two of the objectors, prosecute this appeal from the judgment of the county court.

After the appeal had been perfected, appellee, the village of Northbrook, made a motion in this court to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript of the record on the ground that it had not been presented to the trial court within the time fixed therefor. The motion was allowed and the bill of exceptions was stricken.

[1][2][3] Appellants originally filed 110 objections in the county court, but on motion of appellee they were ordered to specify the objections upon which they intended to rely. Pursuant to this order 29 specific objections were filed. Thirteen of these objections need not be considered because errors are not assigned upon them. Taylor v. Wright, 121 Ill. 455, 13 N. E. 529;Ditch v. Sennott, 116 Ill. 288, 5 N. E. 395. Questions raised by certain errors now assigned were not included in the specific objections filed in the county court and for that reason are not reviewable here. Lingle v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, 222 Ill. 384, 78 N. E. 794;Wilkin v. City of Robinson, 292 Ill. 510, 127 N. E. 90;Village of Elmwood Park v. Mills & Sons, 311 Ill. 136, 142 N. E. 532. Other errors are assigned upon the evidence, but since the bill of exceptions was stricken they are not open to consideration.

[4][5] Still others are of a general nature, e. g., that the trial court erred in overruling the legal objections, in denying the motion for a new trial, in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, and in entering judgment on the findings, that the findings and judgment are contrary to the law, and that there are other errors apparent upon the face of the record. The general rule is that every error of which complaint is made must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors. No attempt has been made by any of these general charges of error to indicate wherein the trial court erred, and none is sufficient to require consideration here. Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154, 61 N. E. 498;Brewer v. National Union Building Ass'n, 166 Ill. 221, 46 N. E. 752;Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Alsop, 176 Ill. 471, 52 N. E. 253, 732. Certain questions, however, have been presented for review and they will be considered.

[6][7] It is contended that the petition filed in the county court was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon that court, because it was filed in the name of the president of the village, and not in the name of the village itself. In the first sentence of the petition the village of Northbrook is referred to as the petitioner. The allegations of the petition and its prayer are by the village. The petition is signed, ‘August Therrien, president of the village of Northbrook.’ The manner of signing was not jurisdictional but merely an irregularity, which could have been corrected if an objection tereto had been made in the trial court. No such objection having been made there, it cannot be considered here. People v. Bloomington Cemetery Ass'n, 266 Ill. 32, 107 N. E. 143;People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 306 Ill. 525, 138 N. E. 105.

[8] Appellants further contend that, the state and county having entered into a contract for the improvement of the central 18 feet of parts of Shermer avenue and Shermerville road within the village of Northbrook, the village is without power or authority to improve any portion of these streets between the same termini. This contention was determined adversely to appellants in Village of Glencoe v. Hurford, 317 Ill. 203, 148 N. E. 69, and Village of Glencoe v. Olson, 317 Ill. 263, 148 N. E. 78.

[9][10] It is contended that the descriptions of the following items in the engineer's estimate of the cost of the improvement are insufficient, viz:

‘6,932 square yards of steel mesh reinforcement, complete in place at 20 cents per square yard, $1,386.40; 2,431 lineal feet of one-half (1/2) inch fibre matrix and bitumen expansion joints, complete in place at 30 cents per lineal foot, $729.30; 234 feet of steel protection plates, complete in place at 25 cents per lineal foot, $58.50.’

In what respect these descriptions are insufficient has not been pointed out. No complaint is made that these materials are not adequately described in the ordinance. Section 10 of the act concerning local improvements (Cahill's Stat. 1923, p. 433) requires an estimate of the cost of the improvement. itemized so far as the board of local improvements shall think necessary. It does not require that the estimate shall contain a detailed statement of the kinds or quantities of materials necessary for the construction of the improvement. The estimate is sufficiently itemized, so far as the property owners are concerned, if it is specific enough to give them a general idea of the estimated cost of the substantial component elements of the improvement. In Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 452, 72 N. E. 1097, an objection to an item in the estimate for the ‘adjustment of sewers, catch-basins, and manholes $1,139.30,’ was overruled. An item in the estimate of cost for ‘adjustment of sewers, catch-basins and manholes and constructing four new catch-basins $1,455.00’ was upheld in Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 352, 75 N. E. 365. Again, in City of Chicago v. Underwood, 258 Ill. 116, 101 N. E. 261, an item in the engineer's estimate for ‘constructing six new catch-basins, complete, at $50, $300’; was held to be sufficiently definite, so far as the property owners were concerned, even though it failed to state the size of the catch-basins or the materials of which they were to be built. The items in the estimate to which objection is here made complied with the statutory requirement, and the objection was properly overruled.

[11] It is objected that there is a material and fatal variance between the estimate and the ordinance because it is asserted that no provision is made by the ordinance for engineer's or inspector's services. The estimate contains an item for ‘engineering and inspection, $1,964.’ The ordinance provides that all the materials used in the construction of the improvement shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the board of local improvements; that the work shall be done in a workmanlike manner under the superintendence of that board; and that the improvement shall be constructed to conform to the plans attached to the ordinance. Appellants have pointed out no requirement which has not been observed. It is not necessary that the details of engineering and inspection work or a complete inventory of every article that will enter into the construction of the improvement shall be set forth in the engineer's estimate of its cost. Village of Donovan v. Donovan, 236 Ill. 636, 86 N. E. 575;City of Park Ridge v. Wisner, 253 Ill. 360, 97 N. E. 677.

[12][13]...