{
  "id": 3330711,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN J. BOWMAN, State's Attorney for Du Page County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Bowman v. Village of Bensenville",
  "decision_date": "1978-10-19",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 77-121, 77-122 cons.",
  "first_page": "857",
  "last_page": "860",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 857"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "364 N.E.2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill. App. 3d 903",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5634880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/49/0903-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.E.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. App. 2d 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2541951
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/81/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.E.2d 635",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2767882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/15/0595-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 5066,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.917,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0535543514741647e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5547205647896847
    },
    "sha256": "91fcb2a2e7b72bd9d1faec1bf405953447d3e674e6149dc5d8f13ee137ea70e8",
    "simhash": "1:b6483c67afd72bb2",
    "word_count": 843
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:21.732212+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN J. BOWMAN, State\u2019s Attorney for Du Page County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis consolidated appeal arises from two separate quo warranto complaints brought by the State\u2019s Attorney of Du Page County against the Village of Bensenville, requiring that the defendant show by what authority it exercised jurisdiction over a portion of Church Road as well as a portion of Hickory Street. The defendant answered that it had properly annexed the roads in question by ordinance, as authorized by section 7 \u2014 1\u201410 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 24, par. 7 \u2014 1\u201410). After hearings the trial court entered orders on November 8, 1976, finding that the annexations were void, ab initio. Defendant appeals.\nThe record before us is confused as to precisely what territory was involved in each proceeding. In case 77-121 the complaint questioned only the defendant\u2019s jurisdiction over that stretch of Church Road which the defendant\u2019s annexation ordinance referred to as \u201cParcel Three\u201d (see Figure \u201cA\u201d).\nTwo other parts of Church Road, \u201cParcels 1 and 2,\u201d which do not appear on Figure \u201cA\u201d were annexed at the same time as Parcel Three and the defendant\u2019s jurisdiction over them was not challenged. However, in this quo warranto proceeding the order of November 8 found that the annexation of all three parcels was void. Those portions of the order in No. 77-121 finding that the annexation of Parcels 1 and 2 were void are in error. The trial court obviously did not have jurisdiction as to these parcels. We summarily reverse that portion of the order which leaves the question of the propriety of the annexation of Parcel Three for our consideration.\nIn case 77-122 the plaintiff challenged the defendant\u2019s jurisdiction only over that stretch of Hickory Street which we have labeled \u201cPart 2\u201d (see Figure \u201cB\u201d).\nThe defendant\u2019s answer related to both of the portions which we have labeled \u201cPart One\u201d and \u201cPart Two\u201d as a single unit. However, the trial court\u2019s order in 77-122 found only the annexation of \u201cPart 2\u201d to be void. Accordingly we will consider only that section on this appeal.\nThe diagrams filed with this opinion accurately reflect the relative locations of the disputed territory and are self-explanatory. In each case it is clear from those diagrams that the challenged portion of territory is not immediately parallel to the defendant\u2019s boundaries with the sole exception of the width of the roads at either end. It is also clear that no known legal or physical impediment existed to the annexation of the unincorporated territory lying between the roads and the village.\nThe sole issue on this appeal is whether a road which touches the boundaries of a municipality only at its end points, and runs parallel but not adjacent to a boundary line of that municipality, is contiguous and qualified for annexation by that municipality.\nIn the leading case of People ex rel. Adamowski v. Village of Streamwood (1959), 15 Ill. 2d 595, 155 N.E.2d 635, our supreme court held that roads annexed under section 1 \u2014 1\u201410 which touched a defendant municipality only at one end, and which were not both adjacent and parallel to the village boundary were legislatively unauthorized and judicially condemned \u201cstrip\u201d of \u201ccorridor\u201d annexations. In the case at hand the defendant contends that the touching of the roads to its boundaries at two end points distinguishes this situation from Streamwood. We disagree. In our view, to hold that contiguity exists in the instant case solely because of a touching of two end points would be to hold that 0 + 0 =1. Such an equation is neither legally nor mathematically reasonable. In regard to the issue of contiguity see also the opinion of this court in People ex rel. Coojar Realty Corp. v. Village of Burr Ridge (1967), 81 Ill. App. 2d 203, 225 N.E.2d 39. See also Wescom, Inc. v. Woodridge Park District (1977), 49 Ill. App. 3d 903, 364 N.E.2d 721.\nThe village has also contended that there is a legitimate municipal purpose for these roadway annexations. This may well be true. However, the record is clear that the defendant made no attempt whatsoever to annex the unincorporated territory lying between itself and the roads involved herein. In our opinion the statutes and case law require that the defendant annex those lands before it annexes the roads. This may be neither efficient nor convenient, but it is the law.\nThe trial court order in case 77-121 is affirmed as to \u201cParcel Three\u201d and reversed as to \u201cParcels One and Two\u201d; the order of the trial court in case 77-122 is affirmed.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and NASH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ray W. Fick, Jr., of Herrick, McNeill, McElroy & Peregrine, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (Malcolm F. Smith and John A. Davidovich, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN J. BOWMAN, State\u2019s Attorney for Du Page County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNos. 77-121, 77-122 cons.\nOpinion filed October 19, 1978.\nRay W. Fick, Jr., of Herrick, McNeill, McElroy & Peregrine, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJ. Michael Fitzsimmons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (Malcolm F. Smith and John A. Davidovich, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0857-01",
  "first_page_order": 879,
  "last_page_order": 882
}