Holden v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court

Holden v. City of Chicago

56 N.E. 1118, 185 Ill. 526

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 N.E. 1118 (Holden v. City of Chicago) 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

Holden v. City of Chicago, 56 N.E. 1118, 185 Ill. 526 (Ill. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was a proceeding by special assessment to pay the cost of curbing, grading and paving Ogden avenue from Warren avenue to West Twelfth street, in the city of Chicago. Judgments of confirmation were rendered in the county court against the property of the objectors, and they sued out this writ of error to reverse the judgment, on the ground that the ordinance fails to state the nature, character, locality and description of the improvement with sufficient certainty, as required in Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207.

Upon looking into the record it will be found that the ordinance in question contains the same defect which was held to be fatal in the Lusk case, and for the reason stated in that case the judgment will have to be reversed. It is, however, claimed, as the record contains no bill of exceptions the ordinance is not before the court. A copy of the ordinance was attached to the petition and made a part thereof, and in Foss v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 436, we held that was sufficient to make the ordinance a part of the record without a bill of exceptions. That case is conclusive of the question here.

For the error indicated, the judgment as to the property of plaintiffs in error will be reversed and the cause will be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Per Curiam:

This was a proceeding by special assessment to pay the cost of curbing, grading and paving Ogden avenue from Warren avenue to West Twelfth street, in the city of Chicago. Judgments of confirmation were rendered in the county court against the property of the objectors, and they sued out this writ of error to reverse the judgment, on the ground that the ordinance fails to state the nature, character, locality and description of the improvement with sufficient certainty, as required in Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207.

Upon looking into the record it will be found that the ordinance in question contains the same defect which was held to be fatal in the Lusk case, and for the reason stated in that case the judgment will have to be reversed. It is, however, claimed, as the record contains no bill of exceptions the ordinance is not before the court. A copy of the ordinance was attached to the petition and made a part thereof, and in Foss v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 436, we held that was sufficient to make the ordinance a part of the record without a bill of exceptions. That case is conclusive of the question here.

For the error indicated, the judgment as to the property of plaintiffs in error will be reversed and the cause will be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.E. 1118, 185 Ill. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holden-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack