City of East St. Louis v. Wittich

108 Ill. 449, 1884 Ill. LEXIS 1499
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 22, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 Ill. 449 (City of East St. Louis v. Wittich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of East St. Louis v. Wittich, 108 Ill. 449, 1884 Ill. LEXIS 1499 (Ill. 1884).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scholeield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a proceeding at a probate term of the county court of St. Clair county, to assess the cost of improvement of a certain street in the city of East St. Louis, under the provisions of the statute relating to “cities, villages and towns.” (Rev. Stat. 1874, chap. 24.) The petition was, on motion, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction in the court, and this ruling presents the only question that we deem it necessary to examine.

Section 31, article 9, of the statute referred to, provides that in such proceedings “the hearing shall be conducted as in other cases.at law,”—i. e., plainly, by implication, as the hearing in other cases at law is conducted in that court. And section 32 of the same article requires that “the hearing in all eases arising under this act shall have precedence overall other eases in such court, except criminal cases. ” There is no jurisdiction in cases at law, nor in criminal cases, at probate terms. Such cases are set for trial and can only be heard at law terms. (Rev. Stat. 1874, secs. 6, 7, chap. 37.) The fact that judgments may be rendered for the sale of real estate for delinquent taxes and special assessments at probate terms, as provided by section 5 of the last named chapter, does not affect the question. This is not that kind of case, nor is the question to be tried nor the mode of trial the same. This proceeding is preliminary to that, and one of the initial steps to fix the liability of the property holder.

We see no cause to disturb the judgment below. It is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Dowdall v. Hutchens
263 Ill. App. 275 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Callon v. City of Jacksonville
35 N.E. 223 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
City of Mt. Carmel v. Friedrich
141 Ill. 369 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer
17 N.E. 232 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 Ill. 449, 1884 Ill. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-east-st-louis-v-wittich-ill-1884.