McChesney v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court

McChesney v. City of Chicago

37 N.E. 872, 151 Ill. 307

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 N.E. 872 (McChesney 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

McChesney v. City of Chicago, 37 N.E. 872, 151 Ill. 307 (Ill. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The County Court of Cook county entered a judgment confirming a special assessment on proceedings under an ordinance of the city of Chicago, and this writ of error is sued out on that record. The ordinance under which those proceedings were had was held invalid by this court in Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 144 Ill. 391. The contention of defendant in error is, that no exception was taken to the order of the court overruling the objections of the plaintiff in error to the confirmation of the assessment roll, and, therefore, error can not be assigned upon such order.

The objections made to the confirmation of the assessment roll were based on the insufficiency of the ordinance, and were questions of law, and presented nothing to be tided by a jury. The order of court shows that fact. No bill of exceptions is necessary, as the object of a bill of exceptions is to preserve in the record such matters as occur during the trial which are not a part of the record, and in such cases the erroneous ruling must be excepted to. Randolph v. Emerick, 13 Ill. 344; Zimmerman v. Cowan, 107 id. 631. Where an error appears in the record proper as made up by the clerk, no exception to the judgment of the court is necessary. The Wiggins Ferry Co. v. The People ex rel., 101 Ill. 446.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The County Court of Cook county entered a judgment confirming a special assessment on proceedings under an ordinance of the city of Chicago, and this writ of error is sued out on that record. The ordinance under which those proceedings were had was held invalid by this court in Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 144 Ill. 391. The contention of defendant in error is, that no exception was taken to the order of the court overruling the objections of the plaintiff in error to the confirmation of the assessment roll, and, therefore, error can not be assigned upon such order.

The objections made to the confirmation of the assessment roll were based on the insufficiency of the ordinance, and were questions of law, and presented nothing to be tided by a jury. The order of court shows that fact. No bill of exceptions is necessary, as the object of a bill of exceptions is to preserve in the record such matters as occur during the trial which are not a part of the record, and in such cases the erroneous ruling must be excepted to. Randolph v. Emerick, 13 Ill. 344; Zimmerman v. Cowan, 107 id. 631. Where an error appears in the record proper as made up by the clerk, no exception to the judgment of the court is necessary. The Wiggins Ferry Co. v. The People ex rel., 101 Ill. 446.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 N.E. 872, 151 Ill. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcchesney-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack