Geiersbach v. Fippinger

Appellate Court of Illinois

Geiersbach v. Fippinger

184 Ill. App. 58

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 4, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,235

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 Ill. App. 58 (Geiersbach v. Fippinger) 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

Geiersbach v. Fippinger, 184 Ill. App. 58 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Mandamus, § 173*—form, of judgment. Judgment that a writ of mandamus “do issue herein,” etc., held not defective for not specifying what respondents are to do where the prayer of the petition is clear and specific. 4. Mandamus, § 172*—what relief warranted by petition. Allegations of a petition for mandamus to compel a village to put into collection a special assessment for paving work done, held not to warrant court in directing respondents to issue vouchers to petitioner. 5. Municipal corporations, § 377*—when village estopped to assert informality of contract for improvement. Village authorities accepting work done by contractor in laying sidewalks in accordance with an ordinance, and under the superintendence of agents for the village, are estopped from setting up the irregular manner in which the contract was entered into as a defense to a petition for mandamus to compel the village to put into collection a special assessment.

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

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Mandamus, § 173*—form, of judgment. Judgment that a writ of mandamus “do issue herein,” etc., held not defective for not specifying what respondents are to do where the prayer of the petition is clear and specific. 4. Mandamus, § 172*—what relief warranted by petition. Allegations of a petition for mandamus to compel a village to put into collection a special assessment for paving work done, held not to warrant court in directing respondents to issue vouchers to petitioner. 5. Municipal corporations, § 377*—when village estopped to assert informality of contract for improvement. Village authorities accepting work done by contractor in laying sidewalks in accordance with an ordinance, and under the superintendence of agents for the village, are estopped from setting up the irregular manner in which the contract was entered into as a defense to a petition for mandamus to compel the village to put into collection a special assessment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Ill. App. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geiersbach-v-fippinger-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack