{
  "id": 844008,
  "name": "William Hale Thompson v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1902-06-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        841368
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/196/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ill. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5539067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/174/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5586031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/195/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2834,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.609,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1420408488207925e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5786910742672642
    },
    "sha256": "6422ff21d63aeaa1b447ea4d83cc587a82e59acbf840c17baeee268ed92acd8a",
    "simhash": "1:d15ba621c87577d8",
    "word_count": 491
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:45.791443+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Hale Thompson v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wilkin\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county to reverse a judgment of confirmation in a special assessment proceeding for paving West VanBuren street from South Paulina street to South Kinzie avenue, in the city of Chicago.\nThirty-seven objections to the confirmation of the assessment were filed in the court below, all of which were overruled. The last of these objections was: \u201cThe provision of the ordinance, and the estimate relating to costs, were superseded by the act of 1901, and the same are invalid.\u201d In the argument of counsel for the appellant it was insisted that the court erred in overruling four or five of the objections, among others the last. That objection should have been sustained. Gage v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 490.\nIt is urged on behalf of the appellee that, not withstanding this result, the cause should be remanded with directions to the county court to eliminate the item of costs and enter a proper judgment, and it is said such a course was pursued in Dobler v. Village of Warren, 174 Ill. 92. This is a misapprehension. In that case the reversal was because of the erroneous judgment against the objectors for the costs arising upon the hearing on the objections filed. Here the item of $4216.98, \u201ccost of making the assessment,\u201d entered into the estimate of the cost of the improvement, and by the amount of that item the assessment was spread for too much. Manifestly, the court cannot, of its own motion, strike out that item and enter a proper judgment without a new assessment.\nIt is also urged that the ordinance is uncertain as to the grade of the finished pavement, and as to the number of flat stones to be used under each curb-stone, and that only five days\u2019 notice of the public hearing was given. This last objection was disposed of in the case of Gage v. City of Chicago, 196 Ill. 512. We think the improvement is sufficiently described in the ordinance.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the county court will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wilkin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Becker, for appellant.",
      "Robert Redpield, (Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Edgar Bronson Tolman, and William M. Pindell, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Hale Thompson v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed June 19, 1902.\nSpecial assessments\u2014cost of making assessment should not he in-eluded in assessment. Under the act of 1901 it is error to include in a confirmation judgment the cost of making and levying the assessment; nor has a court of review power to strike out the item of cost, which has entered into the assessment as spread, and direct the county court to enter a proper judgment without making a new assessment.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nF. W. Becker, for appellant.\nRobert Redpield, (Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Edgar Bronson Tolman, and William M. Pindell, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 599,
  "last_page_order": 600
}