{
  "id": 5592651,
  "name": "George E. P. Dodge v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dodge v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1903-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "68",
  "last_page": "70",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. 68"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3059523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 4171,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.02764704277415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4240106276466311
    },
    "sha256": "e0ee4106dbcb34f9ebc000d7d1b600d59c1ab651a14bb333c1bb826924f34fe9",
    "simhash": "1:380c3f4d84ee2f48",
    "word_count": 688
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:22.665025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George E. P. Dodge v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Cartwright\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe county court of Cook county overruled the objections of appellant to a special assessment upon his real estate to pay for the improvement of Thirteenth street from the east line of State street to the west curb line of Indiana avenue, in the city of Chicago, and entered judgment confirming said assessment. This appeal was taken from said judgment.\nNo ordinance for any local improvement to be paid for by special assessment dan be considered or passed by the city council unless the same has been recommended by the board of local improvements of the city, and appellant contends in this case the recommendation did not \u25a0authorize the city council t'o consider or pass the ordinance. The recommendation, omitting the description of the proposed improvement, was as follows:\n4tTo the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Chicago, in City Council Assembled: '\n\u201cWe hereby submit an ordinance for the improvement i:\u2018 * * together with an estimate of the cost of said improvement, \u2022and recommend the passage of said ordinance and the making of the improvement contemplated therein.\n\u201cRespectfully submitted,\nA. Schonbeck,\nA. M. Lynch,\nE. McG-aefey,\nJohn A. May,\nBoard of Local Improvements of the City of Chicago.\nDated Chicago, April 21, A. D. 1902.\u201d\nThe objection made to the recommendation is, that it was not the recommendation of the board of local improvements, but only of the four individuals who signed it, with their personal description as the board of local improvements of the city of Chicago annexed to their signatures. It is contended that the recommendation by the board must be signed by the president and secretary. There is a provision in section 6 of the act concerning local improvements, for the execution by the president and secretary of contracts, bonds, vouchers, pay-rolls, and all other papers, documents and instruments necessary to carry the act and all proceedings thereunder into full force and effect; but in reference to recommendations to the city council there is a special provision in section 9, as follows: \u201cWith any such ordinance, presented by such board to the city council * \u201d * shall be presented also a recommendation of such improvement by the said board, signed by at least a majority of the members thereof.\u201d (Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1901, p. 378.) It is an established rule in the construction of statutes that where there are two provisions, one of which is general and designed to apply to cases generally, and the other is particular and relating to one subject, the particular provision must prevail and be treated as an exception to the general provision. (Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 141; People v. Rose, 166 id. 422; Dahnke v. People, 168 id. 102; People v. Kipley, 171 id. 44.) That rule applies in this case, where there is a general provision designed to apply to the execution of instruments generally, and another relating to the particular subject of executing recommendations to be presented to the city council. Under the well settled rule the particular provision governs as to such recommendations.\nThe judgment of the county court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Cartwright"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Franklin P. Simons, and Schuyler C. Reber, for appellant.",
      "Edgar Bronson Tolman, (Charles M. Walker, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George E. P. Dodge v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed February 18, 1903.\n1. Statutes\u2014particular provision controls general one. Of two provisions of a statute, one applying to cases generally and the other to a particular subject, the latter will prevail as to such.subject, and is treated as an exception to the general provision.\n2. Special assessments\u2014improvement recommendation need not be signed by secretary and president of board. Section 9 of the Local Improvement act authorizes the signing, by at least a majority of the members of the improvement board, of the recommendation for an improvement, and the same need not be signed by the president and secretary as in case of the instruments required by section 6 to be so signed. \u25a0\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. T. Hodson, Judge, presiding.\nFranklin P. Simons, and Schuyler C. Reber, for appellant.\nEdgar Bronson Tolman, (Charles M. Walker, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0068-01",
  "first_page_order": 68,
  "last_page_order": 70
}