Washington Park Club v. City Of Chicago

• Decision Date: 20 December 1905
• Citation: 219 Ill. 323,76 N.E. 383
• Parties: WASHINGTON PARK CLUB et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

219 Ill. 323

76 N.E. 383

WASHINGTON PARK CLUB et al.

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1905.

Appeal from Cook County Court; Orrin N. Carter, Judge.

Application by the city of Chicago for the confirmation of a special assessment against the Washington Park Club and others. From a judgment confirming the assessment, objectors appeal. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied February 8, 1906.

MacChesney & Bradley and F. W. Becker, for appellants.

Robert Redfield and Frank Johnston, Jr. (James Hamilton Lewis, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was an application for the confirmation of a special assessment for the construction of a system of sewers in the city of Chicago. The appellants appeared and filed objections to confirmation. Their objections were overruled and the assessment confirmed, and the objectors have prosecuted an appeal to this court. The appellants urge four objections as grounds for reversal in this court:

First. It is urged that the provision of section 41 of the local improvement act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, section 547, p. 400) that an affidavit shall be filed before the final hearing, showing a compliance with said section 41, was not complied with. The point was made upon the argument of the case that the affidavits filed were not a compliance with section 41 of the local improvement act. Afterwards and before the case was finally decided, but after the evidence had been introduced, arguments heard, and the court had held the matter under advisement for some weeks, an amended affidavit was permitted to be filed on behalf of the city. This affidavit, we think, complies with all the requirements of that section of the statute, and was sufficient. It is also said section 41 should be so construed as to require the affidavit mentioned in that section to show a compliance with the provisions of sections 38 and 39 of the local improvement act. Section 41 limits the affidavit to that section. Its language is: ‘Showing a compliance with the requirements of this section.’ The statute does not require the affidavit to show a compliance with the requirements of sections 38 and 39 of said act (sections 544, 545), and the court did not err in overruling the objection.

Second. It is next urged there was a variance between the first resolution of the board of local improvements and the ordinance in the description of the improvement. The resolution described the improvement as ‘a system of brick and vitrified tile-pipe sewer,’ while the ordinance described it as ‘a system of brick and vitrified tile-pipe sewers.’ The streets and character of the sewer in each street are described in the resolution as well as the ordinance, and the omission of the letter ‘s' in the word ‘sewers' in the resolution could not have misled the property owners. The variance was immaterial, and the objection was properly overruled.

Third. The ordinance provided for house slants every 25 feet, and it is urged such provision is unreasonable and an arbitrary subdivision of appellants' lands. It has been repeatedly held that such provision in an ordinance is not...