of the amount of the assessment to pay the costs of making and collecting the assessment, is not unconstitutional, as being based upon an arbitrary and irrational classification by population. 6. SAME when court's finding that ordinance is not unreasonable will be upheld. The county court's finding, after viewing the premises, that an ordinance for a relief system of sewers was not unreasonable although the village had a sewer system, will be sustained upon appeal notwithstanding the evidence is conflicting, if there is evidence that the sewer system already constructed was inadequate in times of freshets, that at such times the basements of houses were flooded and the water and sewage ran from, instead of into, the catch-basins in the streets. 7. SAME what does not render ordinance void for unreasonableness. The facts that proposed sewers are to be laid in paved streets instead of alleys and that they are to be laid in a circuitous route alleged to be unnecessarily long, do not, of themselves, show such an abuse of the discretion of the municipal authorities with respect to the nature and locality of the improvement as justifies the court in holding the ordinance void for unreasonableness. 8. SAME when jurisdiction to construct sewers is not lost by connection of territory with sanitary district. Jurisdiction of a village to construct sewers in the territory within its corporate limits is not lost by the mere fact that the territory of which the village forms a part has been connected, by statute, with the Sanitary District of Chicago, where nothing has been done in the village by such sanitary district except to locate the route of its main channel, no work having been done or right of way acquired. 9. SAME what objection cannot be determined upon application to confirm assessment. Upon application to confirm a special assessment for a relief system of sewers, an objection that the construction of the sewers, by reason of their being discharged into Lake Michigan, which furnishes the village water supply, may possibly contaminate such water supply and result in a breach of the contract by the village to supply water to a nearby city, cannot be properly determined but must be left to subsequent proceedings if such contingency shall occur. 10. SAME whether improvement is a proper one is not a question for the jury. In a special assessment proceeding the only questions for the jury are whether the property of the objectors is assessed more than it is benefited by the improvement or more than its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement, and all matters of evidence or instructions which seek to bring before the jury the question whether the improvement is a proper one to be made are properly excluded or refused. APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. L. POND, Judge, presiding. AUGUSTUS N. GAGE, ELA, GROVER & GRAVES, H. H. C. MILLER, WESTERN STARR, ALDEN, LATHAM & YOUNG, GEORGE A. Mason, KING, LAMB & GAGE, CHARLES J. MICHELET, LEE F. ENGLISH, OTTO GRESHAM, H. S. GEMMILL, WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, and ROBERT W. MILLER, (FRANK R. GROVER, CARL, R. LATHAM, and Asahel W. GAGE, of counsel,) for appellants. ROBERT REDFIELD, and A. C. WENBAN, (TOLMAN, REDFIELD & SEXTON, of counsel,) for appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE HAND delivered the opinion of the court: This is an application for judgment of confirmation by the village of Wilmette, in the county court of Cook county, of a special assessment levied by said village to pay the cost of constructing a system of sewers in a portion of the streets of said village to relieve the congested condition of the sewers already in the streets of said village, by furnishing additional means whereby the surface water which accumulates in said village at times of excessive rainfall or freshets may be carried into Lake Michigan, which lies to the east of said village of Wilmette. The appellants appeared and filed objections to confirmation as to their property, and there was a hearing before the court upon the legal questions involved, and afterwards a trial before the court and a jury upon the questions of benefits and whether the property of the appellants was assessed more than its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement, and the findings upon both branches of the case having been against the appellants, a judgment of confirmation was entered against appellants' property, and they have prosecuted an appeal to this court. First-It is objected that the estimate of the cost of the improvement is not sufficient, in this: that it makes no provision for the cost of the re-paving of streets in which the sewers are to be constructed or for the removal of the surplus earth taken from the ditches in which the sewers are to be laid. The estimate of the cost of the improvement is in the following form: "ESTIMATE COST OF IMPROVEMENT. 550 Lineal feet of oak plank sewer, at $3 per lineal foot. $1,650.00 2090 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 6 feet internal di ameter, at $8.70 per lineal foot.... 3710 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 5% feet internal diameter, at $8.20 per lineal foot... 18,183.00 .. 30,422.00 1630 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 48 inches internal diameter, at $6.70 per lineal foot..... 1375 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 45 inches internal diameter, at $6.20 per lineal foot.... 3250 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 42 inches internal diameter, at $5.70 per lineal foot.... 1260 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 36 inches diameter, at $4.70 per lineal foot... .... 5500 Lineal feet of concrete sewer of 30 inches internal diameter, at $4.20 per lineal foot.... 10,921.00 8,525.00 18,525.00 5,922.00 23,100.00 4625 Lineal feet of vitrified tile-pipe sewer of 24 inches internal diameter, at $3.20 per lineal foot... 14,800.00 1900 Lineal feet of vitrified tile-pipe sewer of 18 inches internal diameter, at $2.70 per lineal foot..... 5,130.00 I concrete bulkhead 300.00 750.00 1,320.00 25 ordinary man-holes, complete, at $30 each......... I spillway man-hole of 6 feet internal diameter, complete, 31 catch-basins and connections, complete, at $35 each... For lawful expenses attending the proceedings for making said improvement and the cost of making and collecting the assessment therefor.. Total ... 50.00 1,085.00 8,400.00 .$149,083.00 -and the ordinance provides: "All the necessary labor and work shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner." We think it clear that the cost of re-paving streets torn up in excavating for the sewers and removing surplus earth placed upon the streets of the village during the construction of the sewers is included in the estimate of the cost of the improvement, as, obviously, the improvement would not be put in in a good and workmanlike manner if the portions of the streets where sewers were laid were left unpaved and the earth excavated and not used for re-filling remained in the streets as an obstruction to travel. It has repeatedly been held by this court that an itemized statement of the cost of a local improvement is sufficient which contains a statement of the cost of the substantial component elements of the improvement. Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 452; Clark v. City of Chicago 214 id. 318; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 id. 352. It is said, however, that the ordinance provides that the improvement shall be constructed under the direction and supervision and to the satisfaction of the board of local improvements of the village of Wilmette, and that to allow said board to determine whether the work of construction had been performed in a good and workmanlike manner would be to vest a discretion in said board which would render the ordinance void. We do not agree with this contention. The approval of the work by the board of local improvements is only tentative, as before the improvement can be accepted and paid for by the village the court in which the assessment is confirmed must determine that the improvement is constructed substantially according to the improvement ordinance; (Case v. City of Sullivan, 222 Ill. 56;) and should the board of local improvements determine that the sewers had been put in in a good and workmanlike manner when paved streets remained torn up and obstructed by earth, the approval would be annulled by the court and the improvement would be directed to be completed by replacing the pavement which had been disturbed and removing the earth from the surface of the streets before the construction of the work would be approved and the contract price directed to be paid to the contractor, so that there is nothing to be feared from the abuse of the power conferred upon the board of local improvements to supervise the construction of the work upon the improvement. The work of constructing sewers in a city or village must necessarily proceed under the supervision of some person or body which represents the city or village, and there is no objection to conferring such power upon the board of local improvements, subject, as it is, to the approval of the court that confirmed the assessment. Second-It is objected that the drainage district established by the improvement ordinance is indefinite and uncertain, in this: that the southern boundary of the district is not properly defined. The ordinance provides that the drainage district shall be composed of "all of the territory lying within the corporate limits of said village west of the following described line," which line commences at Lake Michigan at a point in said village and then runs upon a crooked line to a certain point in the village, from which point it runs south "to the south limits of said village." It appears that the point in the village where the east line of the district terminates upon the south, by reason of a jog in the south line of the village is two hundred feet north of the south line of the village, a short distance west of where said east line terminates upon the south, and the contention is that a strip upon the south side of the village, which is about two hundred feet in width, is not included in the drainage district created by the ordinance. Said strip is west of the line which runs "to the south limits of the village." While it may not be due west, it is west of said line, and said strip, we think, is fairly included within the limits of the drainage district. It also appears that the ordinance provides for the construction of sewers in said strip, which clearly shows that said strip is included in the drainage district. In order to determine the meaning of an ordinance, the ordinance as a whole must be considered. |