{ "id": 5270058, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. City of Rockford, Illinois, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The City of Loves Park, Illinois, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. City of Loves Park", "decision_date": "1964-04-03", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,755", "first_page": "286", "last_page": "294", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "47 Ill. App. 2d 286" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "180 NE2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill2d 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2802380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 NE2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ill App2d 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5150031 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/8/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 NE2d 379", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Ill App2d 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5202321 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/22/0116-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 626, "char_count": 11649, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5828671582162965e-07, "percentile": 0.6806902641814252 }, "sha256": "0af56c0fd5a45692579bf4e09d6036e5c503ea7b57218008ea9920badf4a2daa", "simhash": "1:03fb45c60de485b7", "word_count": 1981 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:16.449907+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DOVE, P. J. and McNEAL, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. City of Rockford, Illinois, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The City of Loves Park, Illinois, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, J.\nThe City of Loves Park appeals from a decision setting aside four of five challenged annexation ordinances. Initially the appeal was to the Supreme Court but they transferred the same to us without opinion. Plaintiffs, appellees here, are the City of Rockford and the Woodward Governor Company. The record is fairly voluminous \u2014 348 pages with large fold-out plats, presumably pertinent to the five suspect ordinances challenged in the complaint. Appellant\u2019s abstract has only fifteen pages and no plats. Neither does their brief. Indeed, neither has even a legal description of the territory annexed. The ordinances involved were attached to the complaint as exhibits and are reproduced in the record and they, of course, do contain legal descriptions with plats, though they do not lend themselves to easy inspection and analysis.\nAppellant\u2019s abstract handles these important exhibits in a most offhand manner. For example:\n\u201c11 Exhibit B, an ordinance annexing to the City of Loves Park with legal description set out thereon, passed December 4, 1961, approved same date, published December 14 approved by the Mayor and attested to by the Clerk.\n\u201c13 Exhibit B, sets out map including all of the territory annexed in Ordinance 353.\u201d\nTheir brief begins, after a short statement describing the action, with the following:\n\u201cJudgment was entered by the trial court holding that the ordinances challenged were void except for the annexation of the Wilgus Sanitarium property, Ordinance 351 passed by City of Loves Park, Exhibit A attached to complaint (Rec. 7; Abst. 7) which ordinance was held valid.\u201d\nInterestingly enough, the only abstract reference so far is to an ordinance not even involved, since it was held valid and there is no cross appeal. Continuing:\n\u201cThe defendant\u2019s theories are (1) that the ordinances passed by the City of Loves Park were passed prior to the ordinances passed by the City of Eockford, therefore should have preference, also the petition for voluntary annexation was filed several months ahead, and (2) an ordinance may be passed annexing to the center of the street even though such property is not contiguous at all points to the city where the annexation is being made.\u201d\nThis concludes their first section \u2014 STATEMENT.\nStill in the dark, and skipping a page, we come to a section headed, THE FACTS, hoping for light. It doesn\u2019t shed much. We set it forth in its entirety:\n\u201cOn December 4, 1961, the Council of City of Loves Park passed certain annexation ordinances. The area covered by the annexations are shown by the plats attached to the complaint (Eec. 2) and marked Exhibits A, B, C, and D. On January 2, 1962 the same Council passed another annexation ordinance, a copy of which together with plat is marked Exhibit E and attached to the complaint. The last ordinance is the one complained against by defendant Woodward Governor Corporation.\n\u201cOn the same night the first ordinances were passed, viz December 4, 1962, bnt later in point of time, Loves Park (Rec. 150; Abst. 10) and Rockford (Rec. 182; Abst. 13) passed ordinances which contained descriptions which overlapped the property annexed by the City of Loves Park. The property in dispute is set out on City of Rockford\u2019s Exhibit 1, (Rec. 99; Abst. 7) which is a plat showing the annexation challenged by City of Rockford.\u201d\nIn rereading the last sentence, we note that, \u201cThe property in dispute is set out on City of Rockford\u2019s Exhibit 1, (Rec. 99; Abst. 7) which is a plat showing the annexation challenged by City of Rockford.\u201d We turn to page 7 of the Abst., but we find no plat, instead only what amounts to an index reference to the Record:\n\u201c99 City of Rockford\u2019s Exhibit 1, showing annexation challenged by the City of Rockford.\u201d\nThe next section, ARGUMENT, has two points:\nI\n\u201cThe city that passes an annexation ordinance first in point of time has jurisdiction over the property in question especially where a petition has been on file.\u201d\nII\n\u201cA city may annex property if it joins two portions of the city even if such annexed property is not contiguous at all points.\u201d\nSo far as we are concerned, these propositions are posited in thin air. We are told, however, that while the same day is involved (December 4), the respective Councils of the two cities convened at different times, Loves Park at 7:28 P. M., and Rockford at 7:34 P. M. At this juncture we are referred to \u201c(Rec. 209; Item 5 on City of Rockford Exhibit 14; Abst. 14)\u201d. A quick check of page 14 where the 209 rec-cord-pagination appears, discloses this:\n\u201c209 Rockford Exhibit 14, a journal of proceedings of December 4,1961.\u201d\nLater on under \u201cI\u201d there is this statement:\n\u201cAs to part of the territory annexed to the City of Loves Park, a petition covering the same was filed with the aforesaid city by the owners on February 20, 1961 (Rec. 166; Abst. 11).\u201d\nThis apparently is referring to \u201cthe petition for voluntary annexation filed several months ahead\u201d mentioned in the Statement just quoted. This might be of interest so we flip to page 11 where the record-pagination \u201c166\u201d appears and find:\n\u201c166 Loves Park Exhibit 2, a petition to the City Council of Loves Park . . . requesting that certain property be annexed to Loves Park. This petition was received in my office on February 20/ 1961. City of Rockford Exhibit 6 was received by me December 4, 1961, prior to the meeting.\u201d\nWhat \u201cthat certain property be annexed\u201d encompasses or what is the subject matter of Exhibit 6 is left to our imagination. By checking the index in the abstract under the heading \u201cExhibits\u201d, Rockford\u2019s \u201cExhibit No. 6\u201d is indexed to page 9, and this is what we find \u2014 \u201ca petition for annexation of property just referred to . . . .\u201d The argument under \u201cII\u201d follows in the same vein, with the same vague refer-enees to the abstract and with the same terse indexing to the record. This abstract is really not an abstract but an index!\nRockford\u2019s Brief begins, \u201cIt is impossible to determine from a reading of defendant\u2019s brief and abstract the facts of this case, the issues, or the basis of the appeal.\u201d We couldn\u2019t be more in agreement. Woodward Governor has prepared an additional abstract for us in which Rockford joins, and they continue by telling us that it \u201cshould be of some help to this Court, although the abstract, even with the facts set out in the additional abstract, does not completely reflect the record.\u201d Again, we couldn\u2019t be more in agreement. Rockford also charges that Loves Park has not complied with \u201cSupreme Court Rule 34 in that neither in the abstract nor the additional abstract has the defendant set out the facts of the case.\u201d Rockford means Rule 38 and if so they are correct. Rockford then states, \u201cThis suit involves the validity of an ordinance passed by the City of Rockford annexing some 55 acres of land and the validity of ordinances of the City of Loves Park annexing the same territory.\u201d We don\u2019t know whether we agree with them or not. This is the first time that we have heard that the validity of an ordinance passed by Rockford is in question. What they probably mean is that it in some way impinges on the \u201cordinances challenged\u201d. Rockford also says that their ordinance,\n\u201chere involved is substantially the same, except for the map attached, which in this case shows the west boundary of the Rockford annexation going only to the east bank of the Rock Rover (sic), as the ordinance involved in Case No. 37274, entitled The People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. Clinton Gray . . . , also pending in the November Term of this Court. This ordinance involving Clinton Gray, etc., was passed several months before the ordinance here involved.\u201d\nWe are trying, bnt we are definitely not on top of things. Rockford follows with their Theory of Case, stating that,\n\u201cits ordinance should prevail because (1) it was passed before the Loves Park ordinance, and (2) more important, it was recorded before the Loves Park ordinance, and (3) most important, the land involved is almost completely surrounded by the previous corporate limits of the City of Rockford, touching upon Loves Park only at one point on the North portion.\u201d\nWe have a lot of questions to ask but we won\u2019t, only: What is everybody talking about?\nWoodward Governor is only concerned with Ordinance No. 361, which is what \u201cIP\u2019 and \u201c(2)\u201d of the Loves Park Brief is all about. We discover for the first time that \u201cThis strip of one-half of a public highway is 50 feet in width and 1 mile in length\u201d. Woodward Governor, as noted, has prepared an additional abstract and both it and their brief have multicolored plats which are extra-ordinarily helpful. They have done a very nice job and while we agree obiter with their exposition, they really have no issue to meet. It is Loves Park\u2019s appeal, not theirs.\nIn the law of appeals there is a presumption that a judgment appealed from is correct and in accordance with the law and the facts. Appellate Courts never presume error. Loves Park, the appellant, has not in our opinion overcome this presumption of regularity by showing affirmatively in what way the judgment is erroneous. Rubinstein v. Fred A. Coleman Co., 22 Ill App2d 116, 159 NE2d 379. In legal effect, an abstract is the appellant\u2019s pleading and it should therefore be something more than a mere index. To pnt it succinctly, it should in fact be an abstract, a condensation of the record, not an index. The very heart of this appeal lies in four ordinances involving the annexation of land. Certainly a minimal requirement would be the reproduction of the ordinances in the abstract and it would certainly be desirable to carry them into the context of the brief with explanatory text. Our Buie 6, and Supreme Court Rule 38, require an appellant to prepare a fair and adequate abstract of record. To be on the safe side, \"Woodward Governor felt obliged to furnish us with an additional abstract \u2014 one, incidentally, of the same length. The Chinese proverb, \u201cA picture is worth a thousand words\u201d, is a particularly apt one in annexation and disconnection cases and we would commend this nugget to future brief writers. We stated in Galvan v. Torres, 8 Ill App2d 227, 131 NE2d 367:\n\u201cThis court should be able to rely upon the abstract of the record as prepared by counsel for appellant and upon counsel\u2019s statement and should not be required to examine the record to ascertain the facts; neither should counsel for appellee be required to furnish an additional abstract in order to correctly present the record to this court.\u201d\nSince the rule relating to abstracts have the force of law, failure to comply therewith mandates affirmance. Thillens, Inc. v. Department of Financial Institutions, 24 Ill2d 110, 180 NE2d 494. As we said in Rubinstein, noted above, \u201cThe abstract should present every error relied upon for reversal, and everything necessary to decide the questions raised, in such a manner that it will not be necessary for the Court to resort to the record.\u201d\nOutside of Ordinance 361, we do not have the foggiest notion as to whether the judgment below is correct or not. We will therefore indulge in the presumption and such judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDOVE, P. J. and McNEAL, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Harold H. Pahlas, of Rockford (Raphael E. Yalden, of counsel), for appellant.", "Thomas, Davis and Kostanacos, of Rockford (Charles S. Thomas and Karl C. Williams, of counsel), for Woodward Governor Co., appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. City of Rockford, Illinois, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The City of Loves Park, Illinois, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 11,755.\nSecond District, First Division.\nApril 3, 1964.\nRehearing denied May 11, 1964.\nHarold H. Pahlas, of Rockford (Raphael E. Yalden, of counsel), for appellant.\nThomas, Davis and Kostanacos, of Rockford (Charles S. Thomas and Karl C. Williams, of counsel), for Woodward Governor Co., appellee." }, "file_name": "0286-01", "first_page_order": 302, "last_page_order": 310 }