Buckley v. Eisendrath

Appellate Court of Illinois

Buckley v. Eisendrath

58 Ill. App. 364, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 45

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 22, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 Ill. App. 364 (Buckley v. Eisendrath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckley v. Eisendrath, 58 Ill. App. 364, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 45 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petition, while stating that the petitioner is the owner of a certain lot and that he desires to improve the same, fails to allege that he applied to the defendant Eisendrath for a permit to erect a building upon that or any other particular lot.

The petition does not purport to set forth all of the ordinances of the city of Chicago relative to the erection of buidings therein, but alleges that he, the petitioner, has complied with all and every one of the requirements of the ordinances of said city relative to the erection of buildings therein.

This is but the statement of a conclusion. Acts of compliance should be set forth, not his conclusion that he has complied. Nor is it sufficient in pleading an ordinance to allege that its substance is so and so. That is but stating a conclusion of the pleader. The ordinance, or so much thereof as is relied upon, should be set forth.

From so much of the building ordinances as is set forth in the petition, it is manifest that the building commissioner is to judge as to whether the plans and specifications describe such a building as the ordinances permit the erection of. Where it is alleged that the commissioner has abused his discretion by a refusal to approve plans which it was his duty to approve, such plans should be clearly set forth in the petition. The plans and specifications should be such as make it plain that a refusal to accept the same was á wanton abuse of power; for this purpose the place at which the building is to be erected should be specified with such distinctness as to leave no room for doubt.

The writ of mandamus will not be issued where the right to what is claimed is doubtful. People v. Forquer, 1 Breese, 109; People v. Curyea, 16 Ill. 547; People v. Kilduff, 15 Ill. 501, 502; Tapping on Mandamus, 165, 166; People v. Lieb, 85 Ill. 490; Brokaw v. Commissioners, 130 Ill. 492; North v. Trustees, 137 Ill. 301.

We do not think that appellant has made it plain that the writ should be awarded to him.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petition, while stating that the petitioner is the owner of a certain lot and that he desires to improve the same, fails to allege that he applied to the defendant Eisendrath for a permit to erect a building upon that or any other particular lot.

The petition does not purport to set forth all of the ordinances of the city of Chicago relative to the erection of buidings therein, but alleges that he, the petitioner, has complied with all and every one of the requirements of the ordinances of said city relative to the erection of buildings therein.

This is but the statement of a conclusion. Acts of compliance should be set forth, not his conclusion that he has complied. Nor is it sufficient in pleading an ordinance to allege that its substance is so and so. That is but stating a conclusion of the pleader. The ordinance, or so much thereof as is relied upon, should be set forth.

From so much of the building ordinances as is set forth in the petition, it is manifest that the building commissioner is to judge as to whether the plans and specifications describe such a building as the ordinances permit the erection of. Where it is alleged that the commissioner has abused his discretion by a refusal to approve plans which it was his duty to approve, such plans should be clearly set forth in the petition. The plans and specifications should be such as make it plain that a refusal to accept the same was á wanton abuse of power; for this purpose the place at which the building is to be erected should be specified with such distinctness as to leave no room for doubt.

The writ of mandamus will not be issued where the right to what is claimed is doubtful. People v. Forquer, 1 Breese, 109; People v. Curyea, 16 Ill. 547; People v. Kilduff, 15 Ill. 501, 502; Tapping on Mandamus, 165, 166; People v. Lieb, 85 Ill. 490; Brokaw v. Commissioners, 130 Ill. 492; North v. Trustees, 137 Ill. 301.

We do not think that appellant has made it plain that the writ should be awarded to him.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Ill. App. 364, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-eisendrath-illappct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack