{
  "id": 835329,
  "name": "Charles D. Dickey et al. v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickey v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1894-10-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "468",
  "last_page": "471",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. 468"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "90 Ill. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 Ill. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5470880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/149/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5439295
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0051-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 5062,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0599897330993742e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5568077521121888
    },
    "sha256": "b76dbadfceb18884ceb86428f928ca8ef3f725ac2b915b56e85be6080575fefc",
    "simhash": "1:d3e7cb3f180dc84e",
    "word_count": 854
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:00.671418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles D. Dickey et al. v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Magruder\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Cook County confirming an assessment in a supplemental proceeding, levied to raise the amount necessary to pay the compensation awarded by the judgment in a condemnation proceeding, commenced by appellee for widening Central Park Avenue between Chicago Avenue and North Avenue in the City of Chicago. The appellants, being the trustees and devisees under the will of Hugh T. Dickey, deceased, appeared and filed objections to the confirmation of the assessment below.\nSeveral objections were filed to the confirmation of the assessment, all of which were overruled, and exception was taken. The only one of these objections, which is now insisted upon and which is discussed by counsel, is that the judgment of condemnation was invalid for want of jurisdiction over Hugh T. Dickey.\nThe petition for condemnation was filed on December 18, 1890. The condemnation judgment was rendered on July 22, 1891. . The supplemental petition was filed on October 7,1891. Hugh T. Dickey died June 3,1892. The assessment roll was filed on February 10, 1893, and the objections were filed on February 20, 1893.\nSection 5 of article 9 of the City and Village Act provides, that the petition for condemnation shall contain the names of the owners of the land to be taken or damaged, and where any known owners are non-residents of the State, the fact of such non-residence must be stated. Here, the petition states \u201cthat the lots, pieces of land and' property which will be taken or damaged, and the names of the owners and occupants thereof, so far as known to the corporation counsel of the City of Chicago, the officer filing this petition, are as follows, viz.: Hugh T. Dickey, West 33 feet of S. of Lot 1,\u201d etc. Then follow the names of other owners and the descriptions of other property. There was no allegation in the petition, nor any statement in any affidavit filed in the cause, that Hugh T. Dickey was a non-resident. (Sec. 6, art. 9, chap. 24,1 Starr & Cur. pages 488, 489). Summons was issued against him and returned \u201cnot found\u201d as to him. It is true, that affidavit was filed and publication made under section 6 of article 9 as to unknown owners. But this publication cannot be regarded as service upon Dickey, because his name was mentioned in the petition as a known owner. There was no service upon him either by summons or by publication. Therefore the condemnation judgment was absolutely void as to him and his property. The statute must be strictly complied with. Section 6 declares that \u201c* * * a summons * * * shall be issued and served upon the persons made parties defendant, as in cases in chancery. And in case any of them are unknown or reside out of this State, the clerk of the Court, upon an affidavit being filed, showing such fact, shall cause publication to be made,\u201d etc. The petition for condemnation, after naming Dickey and other owners, in express words \u201cmakes said persons parties defendant.\u201d\nIt is true that the relief sought by the supplemental petition is collateral to the judgment of condemnation, but that judgment is only binding upon the parties thereto. (Goodwillie v. City of Lake View, 137 Ill. 51). It may be collaterally attacked in the supplemental proceeding when the court had no jurisdiction to render it. Judgments entered without jurisdiction are void, and will be held to be void in a collat\u00e9ral proceeding. (Ayer v. City of Chicago, 149 Ill. 262). We think that the court below should have sustained the objection.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expiessed.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Magruder"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Mason Bros., for the appellants :",
      "Mr. Lockwood Honors, and Mr. Harry Rubens, Corporation Counsel, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles D. Dickey et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nFiled at Ottawa October 29, 1894.\nSpecial assessments \u2014sufficiency of service by publication. Where a petition mentions a party defendant as a known owner, describing his property, publication, under section 6 of article 9, concerning special assessments as to unknown owners, will not be a sufficient service, and a judgment rendered without other service is void.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward P. Dunne, Judge, presiding. -\nMessrs. Mason Bros., for the appellants :\nThe judgment of condemnation entered in this cause was void as to Hugh T. Dickey, he not having been served personally, or by publication notice addressed to him. Rev. Stat. (Cothran\u2019s ed.) chap. 24, secs. 120-122; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 99.\nThe city made Dickey a party defendant to its petition, and alleged that he owned certain lands therein described. By so doing it acknowledged his title to the lands, and cannot now be heard to deny that he was seized of them. Railroad Co. v. Hopkins, 90 Ill. 322.\nThe publication notice gave the court no jurisdiction over him, for it does not purport to be addressed to him. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 99.\nMr. Lockwood Honors, and Mr. Harry Rubens, Corporation Counsel, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0468-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 471
}