Myers v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court

Myers v. City of Chicago

63 N.E. 1037, 196 Ill. 591

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 N.E. 1037 (Myers 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

Myers v. City of Chicago, 63 N.E. 1037, 196 Ill. 591 (Ill. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Carter

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only point made by appellants in their argument in this court for reversal of the judgment of confirmation is, that “the ordinance is premature, unreasonable, unjust, unnecessary and oppressive, and therefore void.” We cannot'sustain appellants’ contention on the record presented. The evidence tended to prove that the lots were assessed each $18.20 and that their value was about $250 each. The assessment may appear to be burdensome, especially upon the vacant property, but there was no evidence that the property was not benefited by the improvement as much as it was assessed. The presumptions are all in favor of the reasonableness of the ordinance, and we cannot declare it void unless it is manifestly so or is made so to appear from the evidence. The municipal authorities are the best judges of the importance and necessity of the extension of its system for supplying the inhabitants of the city with water and for fire protection. We do not mean to say that an ordinance for such purposes may not, as for any other, be held void for unreasonableness, but only that it must be made clearly to appear that it is unreasonable before the courts can so declare. The facts do not bring the case within the same class of cases cited by appellants, viz.: City of Chicago v. Rumpff, 45 Ill. 90; Tugman v. City of Chicago, 78 id. 405; Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 id. 37; City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 id. 247; Hawes v. City of Chicago, 158 id. 653.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Carter

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only point made by appellants in their argument in this court for reversal of the judgment of confirmation is, that “the ordinance is premature, unreasonable, unjust, unnecessary and oppressive, and therefore void.” We cannot'sustain appellants’ contention on the record presented. The evidence tended to prove that the lots were assessed each $18.20 and that their value was about $250 each. The assessment may appear to be burdensome, especially upon the vacant property, but there was no evidence that the property was not benefited by the improvement as much as it was assessed. The presumptions are all in favor of the reasonableness of the ordinance, and we cannot declare it void unless it is manifestly so or is made so to appear from the evidence. The municipal authorities are the best judges of the importance and necessity of the extension of its system for supplying the inhabitants of the city with water and for fire protection. We do not mean to say that an ordinance for such purposes may not, as for any other, be held void for unreasonableness, but only that it must be made clearly to appear that it is unreasonable before the courts can so declare. The facts do not bring the case within the same class of cases cited by appellants, viz.: City of Chicago v. Rumpff, 45 Ill. 90; Tugman v. City of Chicago, 78 id. 405; Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 id. 37; City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 id. 247; Hawes v. City of Chicago, 158 id. 653.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.E. 1037, 196 Ill. 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack