{ "id": 3006348, "name": "William J. Evans v. The People ex rel. Charles Kern, Collector", "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. People ex rel. Kern", "decision_date": "1891-11-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "552", "last_page": "554", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "139 Ill. 552" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 4526, "ocr_confidence": 0.469, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.3420343619561144e-07, "percentile": 0.9180486970475885 }, "sha256": "d57dc591f50120f05d69a636d77edae9a54e7ccab347dc794c2543c0caa5f688", "simhash": "1:2d91b0e280455f80", "word_count": 772 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:05:45.158701+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William J. Evans v. The People ex rel. Charles Kern, Collector." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Soholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court r\nThis was an application for an order for the sale of certain \u25a0 real estate in the city of Chicago for the payment of a delinquent special assessment. The objector made no appearance-to the application for judgment of confirmation of the special assessment, but he appeared and resisted the present application, upon the ground that the county court did not have; jurisdiction to render the judgment of confirmation. The court overruled the objection, and this appeal brings that ruling-before us for review.\nIt is enacted by section 27, article 9, chapter 24, of the Revised Statutes of 1874, that notice of intention to apply for confirmation of special assessment shall be given: \u201cFirst, they shall send by mail to each owner of premises assessed whose name and place of residence are known to them, notice-substantially in the following form: (Here follows form of notice.) Second, they shall cause at least ten days.\u2019 notice to-be given, by posting notices in at least four public places, etc., and by publishing the same at least five successive days in some daily newspaper.\u201d\nThe contentions of counsel for appellant are: First, the-affidavit showing that a copy of the notice was sent by mail to appellant is that of one of the commissioners, only; and second, the certificate of publication in a daily newspaper fails-to show publication for five successive days.\nThe first of these is clearly untenable. The statute (see. 28, art. 9, chap. 24, Rev. Stat. 1874,) only requires the affidavit of \u201cone or more\u201d of the commissioners, leaving it in their discretion whether the affidavit shall be by one, only, or by more than one. Nor is this affected by the circumstance that the affidavit must state that the notice has been sent \u201cto the-owner whose premises have been assessed and whose name and place of business are known to them,\u201d etc., for it is not perceived why the affidavit of one may not as truthfully state this as the affidavit of all.\nThe other contention must be sustained. It will have been observed the requirement of the statute is, that notice by publication shall he by \u201cpublishing the same at least jive successive days, in some daily newspaper.\u201d The certificate of' publication is merely that the notice \u201chas been published jive times in the Chicago Mail, a daily newspaper printed and pub\u00bb lished in the city of Chicago, in said county, and that the date-of the first paper containing the said published notice was the 29th day of January, A. D. 1891, and that the date of the last paper containing the same was the 3d day of February, A. D. 1891.\u201d But since many daily newspapers print and publish \u25a0second editions of the same day, it can not follow that because a notice has been published in a daily newspaper five times, \u25a0each publication was on a different day. For aught that here appears this notice may have been published two or more times in different editions of the paper printed and published on the same day. The certificate should have followed the statute, and shown a publication on five successive days.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Soholfield" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Consider H. Willett, for the appellant.", "Mr. C. A. Dibble, Mr. E. S. Metcalf, and Mr. John S. Miller, for the appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William J. Evans v. The People ex rel. Charles Kern, Collector.\nFiled at Ottawa\nNovember 24, 1891.\n1. Special assessment\u2014affidavit of service of notice. The affidavit \u2022 showing that a copy of the notice of the application for the confirma\u00bb \u2022 tion of a special assessment may be made by one or more of the commissioners, and this is not affected by the fact that the affidavit must state that the notice has been sent to the owner whose premises have \u25a0 been assessed and whose name and place of residence are known to \u25a0 them.\n2. Same\u2014notice of application for confirmation\u2014certificate of publication. Under section 27, article 9, of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, the commissioners making a special assessment were \u25a0 required to give notice of their application for the confirmation of their roll, \u201cby publishing the same at least five successive days in some \u25a0 daily newspaper.\u201d A certificate of publication of such notice, that it-\u201chas been published five times,\u201d giving the dates of the first and last of the paper containing the same, is fatally defective, and gives no jurisdiction to the court to confirm the assessment.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Consider H. Willett, for the appellant.\nMr. C. A. Dibble, Mr. E. S. Metcalf, and Mr. John S. Miller, for the appellee." }, "file_name": "0552-01", "first_page_order": 552, "last_page_order": 554 }