Wright v. the City of Chicago.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Citation | 48 Ill. 285,1868 WL 5103 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY WRIGHTv.THE CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Chief Justice, presiding.
This was an application in the court below for a judgment against certain lots in the City of Chicago, on a special assessment warrant, for certain public improvements.
The report of the Board of Public Works, upon which the proceeding is based, was as follows:
“ To the Mayor, &c.:
The Board of Public Works having received an application for the improvement of Kinzie street, from the west line of Clark street to Kinzie street bridge, recommend that” certain specified improvements be made
Then follows an estimate of the total expense of the proposed improvement, which is fixed at $31,183.75. The report concluding as follows:
“It is the opinion of the board, that of this estimate of expense, the sum of $23,840.04 may be properly chargeable to real estate specially benefited by the said proposed improvement, and that the sum of $7,343.71 may be properly chargeable to, and paid out of, the general or some specific fund, provided by general taxation.
It is also the opinion of the board, that real estate to be assessed for said improvement, can be found specially benefited to the extent of the damages, costs and expenses necessary to be incurred thereby.”
Appended to the assessment roll is the following certificate of the Commissioners of the Board of Public Works:
“The undersigned hereby certify, that they have completed the assessment roll, amounting to $23,840.04, the sum ordered by the Common Council of the City of Chicago, to be assessed by the Commissioners of the Board of Public Works, upon the real estate by them deemed specially benefited by the” proposed improvement; “and that said assessment has been made upon the real estate deemed by them specially benefited by the said improvement, in proportion, as nearly as may be, to the special benefits resulting thereto; that before proceeding to make such assessment, they were duly qualified before entering upon their duties, as appears by the oath hereto attached; that they then gave six days' notice, by publication in the Chicago Republican, the corporation newspaper of the City of Chicago, of the time and place of their meeting, for the purpose of making such assessment, said publication being completed previous to such meeting, as appears by the certificate of publication hereto annexed; that they were present at the time and place, and for the purpose designated in the said notice, and did then and there, and do hereby, assess the respective amounts set opposite to each separate block, lot, sub-lot, piece or parcel of land in the foregoing assessment roll mentioned, in their appropriate columns, as the special benefits resulting thereto from said contemplated improvement.”
On the trial in the court below, the defendants, against whose property the judgment was sought to be obtained, propounded to A. H. Burley, one of the Commissioners, the following interrogatories:
1. State if you know whether the Board of Public Works examined the lots assessed, before reporting to the Common Council the ordinance directing said work to be done.
2. State if you know whether the Board of Public Works, before or at the time of making said assessment, determined that lots one (1), two (2) and three (3), in block three (3); lots four (4) and five (5), in block two (2), and lot four (4) in block four (4), all of the original town of Chicago, would not be benefited by said assessment.
3. State if you know what was the reason for the omission of said lots from said assessment.
4. State if you know whether the Board of Public Works omitted said lots from the assessment, for the reason that said lots had been assessed, or were about to be, for the making of improvements on other streets.
5. For the payment of what debts, if any, of the City of Chicago, was said assessment made?
6. Is the City of Chicago indebted for the making of said improvements, and is said assessment made for the purpose of paying said debts? 7. State if you know whether lots three (3) and four (4), in block six (6), of the original town of Chicago, are more benefited by said assessment than lot five (5), in block two (2), and the lot immediately opposite on the north?
To each and every one of the foregoing questions, the counsel for the city objected, and the court sustained said objections, and the witness was not permitted to answer any of said questions. To which ruling of the court, the defendants then and there excepted.
The trial resulted in a judgment against the lots, from which the owners appealed to this court.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State on inf. McKittrick v. Wallach
...1939; State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 321 Mo. 1126, 14 S.W.2d 990; Bowers v. Missouri Mut. Assn., 333 Mo. 492, 62 S.W.2d 1058; Wright v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 285; State ex rel. Buchanan v. Fulks, 296 Mo. 614, S.W. 129; State ex inf. McKittrick v. Wymore, 345 Mo. 169, 132 S.W.2d 979; State ......
-
City of Higginsville ex rel. and to Use of Kasco, Inc. v. Alton R. Co.
... ... money judgment to have been rendered against the defendant, ... Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company ... Stradler v. Meyer, 59 Mo. 400; Associated Holding ... Co. v. Kelley, 230 Mo.App. 267, 90 S.W.2d 423; Berry ... v ... City of Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 23, 24, 30; ... DeLas Cases Petitioner, 178 Mass. 213, 219; Adams Petitioner, ... 165 Mass. 494, 499, 501; Wright v. City of Chicago, ... 48 Ill. 285.] The presumption is that public ... [171 S.W.2d 803] ... officials properly perform their duties and it ... ...
-
Coty of Chicago v. Farwell
...value he put in his award and upon what basis it was made, and the court refused to allow the examination, which was correct. Wright v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 285;Quick v. Village of River Forest, 130 Ill. 323, 22 N. E. 816;Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago, 219 Ill. 323, 76 N. E. 3......
-
City of Higginsville, Mo., v. Alton Railroad Co.
...of Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 23, 24, 30; DeLas Cases Petitioner, 178 Mass. 213, 219; Adams Petitioner, 165 Mass. 494, 499, 501; Wright v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 285.] The presumption is that officials properly perform their duties and it will be presumed in this case, although the tax bills a......