Page images


Fay ads. Streit....
Fickes ads. Noble..
Foster v. Oberreich.

319 594 525

Litz v. Village of West

Loeb ads. Alexander.

454 Lyon v. Lyon..


: 310

M Gage v. Village of Wilmette 428 Gardner ads. Connor...... 258 Macauley ads. People ex rel. 208 Gillett v. Chicago Title and

Mahoney ads. Chicago ConTrust Co.....


solidated Traction Co... 562 Glanz v. Miller...

Manternach v. Studt.... 196

356 Glos v. Cass...


Mariner v. Ingraham.... 130

Marquette Cement Manf.

Co. v. Williams..... 26

McKinnie v. Lane. Hake v. People..... 174

544 Hanson ads. Pearson. 610

McReynolds v. People..... 623

Merchants' and Farmers'
Healy ads. People ex rel... 280
Herath ads. Elgin, Joliet &

State Bank v. Dawdy.... 199 Eastern Ry. Co.....

Miller ads. Glanz........

196 109 Hicks ads. Bruner....

Miller ads. Minnesota Mu

536 Hill v. Siffermann.

tual Life Ins. Co...... 273

19 Hilt v. Simpson..

Miller v. People.

65 170

Milwaukee Avenue State 1

Bank ads. People ex rel.. 505

Minnesota Mutual Life Ins.
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v.
Stewart ....

Co. v. Link, Miller and

273 Ingraham ads. Mariner.... 130

Muttschall ads. Eckels... 462 J

Joliet Stove Works v. Kiep. 550

Nelson v. Chicago Title
and Trust Co..

440 K

New York Nat. Exchange Kaspar v. People. ..... 342 Bank ads. Reed...

50 Kent v. Chicago Title and Noble v. Fickes..

594 Trust Co.

495 Northern Trust Co. ads. Kiep ads. Joliet Stove Works 550 Patterson

334 Kirk ads. Darst.


Northwestern Elev. R. R. Kohn ads. Daly.


Co. ads. Peabody Coal Co. 214 Kretschmar v. Ruprecht... 492 Northwestern University v.

Village of Wilmette..... 80 L Lane ads. McKinnie....... 544

O Link ads. Minnesota Mu- Oberreich ads. Foster...... 525

tual Life Ins. Co........ 273 Olney, City of, v. Conour .. 15



58 356



PAGE. PAGE. Pate ads. Sill...

Siffermann ads. Hill...... 19 Patterson v. Northern Trust

Sill v. Pate.

39 Co...... 334 Simpson ads. Hilt.

170 Peabody Coal Co. ads. Ad

Sporka v. People... 174 469

Stewart ads. Illinois CenPeabody Coal Co. ads. Coal

tral R. R. Co...... 204 Belt Electric Ry. Co.... 164

St. Louis, Alton & Terre Peabody Coal Co. v. North

Haute R. R. Co. ads. Peowestern Elev. R. R. Co.. 214

ple ex rel.

61 Pearson v. Hanson.

Streit v. Fay.

319 People ads. Anderson.....

Strong ads. Chicago City

174 People ads. Hake....


Ry. Co... People ex rel. v. Healy.... 280

Studt ads. Manternach.... People ads. Kaspar...... 342

People ex rel. v. Macauley. 208

Teel v. Dunnihoo....
People ads. McReynolds... 623
People ads. Miller........ 65

People ex rel. v. Milwaukee
Avenue State Bank.....

Upson ads. Davis......... 327

505 People ads. Sporka.... 174

V People ex rel. v. St. Louis,

Van Vlissingen ads. Crocker 225 Alton & T. H. R. R. Co. 61

Vaughan ads. Sears....... 572 Prudential Ins. Co. of America ads. Sheridan....... 33


Wanic ads. Chicago & Joliet
Electric Ry. Co........

530 Reddick ads. Chicago Ter- Welsh ads. Minnesota Mu

minal Transfer R. R. Co. 105 tual Life Ins. Co........ 273 Reed v. New York Nat.

West Hammond, Village of, Exchange Bank..... 50 ads. Litz

310 Ruprecht ads. Kretschmar. 492 Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon. 93

Williams ads. Marquette

Cement Manf. Co....... 26 Schoeberlein ads, City of Wilmette, Village of, ads. Aurora


Gage Sears v. Vaughan..

572 Wilmette, Village of, ads. Seefeld ads. Shedd.


Northwestern University. 80 Shedd v. Seefeld...

118 Sheridan v. Prudential Ins.

Y Co. of America......


Yantis ads. Deadman..... 243









Opinion filed October 23, 1907.

1. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS—rule as to engineer's estimate being itemized. The statute requiring the engineer's estimate of cost to be itemized to the satisfaction of the board of local improvements, contemplates that it shall be itemized sufficiently to give the property owners a general idea of the estimated cost of each substantial, component element.

2. SAMEwhen paving estimate need not specify item for grading. A paving improvement estimate, preceded by the statement that it includes labor, material and other expenses, which divides the improvement into four component parts with the estimated cost of each, as, concrete gutter on cinders, combined curb and gutter on cinders, the paving with its various parts, and the adjustment of sewers, covers the grading necessary to put the component elements in place, and need not separately itemize estimated cost of grading.

3. SAME-rule as to power of court to change assessment roll. Under sections 47 and 52 of the Local Improvement act the county court has power to change or modify the assessment roll and may refer the roll to the superintendent for revision, but in such case the court must determine, in general, the manner in which the changes shall be made, and such determination must be incorporated in the record in order to show the action of the court. (Schemick v. City of Chicago, 151 Ill. 336, distinguished.)

4. SAMEthe court cannot adopt new assessment roll made by superintendent. Where an assessment roll is referred to the superintendent of special assessments with directions to re-cast the same, on the face thereof, in red ink, but without any determination as to the manner of re-casting, if the superintendent, instead of re-casting the roll, returns a new one, the court is without power to adopt it, since the court cannot make the original assessment roll, nor can the superintendent alter a roll he has once returned except in a manner directed by the court.

5. SAME-court has no power to arbitrarily change assessment roll. After an assessment roll is prepared and returned by the superintendent of special assessments the county court may, for good cause shown at the hearing, but not arbitrarily, make such changes as are necessary to make a just and equitable assessment, or it may refer the roll to the superintendent, who may make such changes as the court directs; but such superintendent is without power, of his own motion or by direction of the court, to make changes according to his own discretion.

APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. H. HINEBAUGH, Judge, presiding.

WILLIAM L. REED, and E. P. H. WEST, (WILLIAM J. HENLEY, of counsel,) for appellant.


CHARLES H. MITCHELL, (JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE Dunn delivered the opinion of the court:

Application was made to the county court of Cook county for the confirmation of a special assessment against appellant's property for the paving of Lowe avenue. To the assessment roll originally filed, in which the amount of the assessment against appellant's property was $7371.40, appellant filed no objection. It was defaulted and judgment entered against it for the amount assessed. Afterward the court entered an order referring the roll back to the com

« PreviousContinue »