{ "id": 5621136, "name": "The Washington Park Club et al. v. The City of Chicago", "name_abbreviation": "Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago", "decision_date": "1905-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "323", "last_page": "325", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 Ill. 323" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 Ill. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5226674 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/48/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 Ill. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5585493 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/195/0200-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 304, "char_count": 5579, "ocr_confidence": 0.789, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.958875016565372e-08, "percentile": 0.5019653655483389 }, "sha256": "3b4238aa3576e50dcc38464b0e084f15113775746df44faf91d6d050e5649ea2", "simhash": "1:81176a263323dcc9", "word_count": 925 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:05.407737+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Washington Park Club et al. v. The City of Chicago." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Hand\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis was an application for the confirmation of a special assessment for the construction of a system of sewers in the city of Chicago. The appellants appeared and filed objections to confirmation. Their objections were overruled and the assessment confirmed, and the obj ectors have prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nThe appellants urge four objections as grounds for reversal in this court :\nFirst\u2014It is urged that the provision of section 41 of the Local Improvement act (Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1903, chap. 24, par. 547, p. 400,) that an affidavit shall be filed before the final hearing showing a compliance with said section 41, was not complied with. The point was made upon the argument of the case that the affidavit filed was not a compliance with section 41 of the Local Improvement act. Afterwards and before the case was finally decided, but after the evidence had been introduced, \"arguments he\u00e1rd and the court had held the matter under advisement for some weeks, an amended affidavit was permitted to be filed on behalf of the city. This affidavit, we think, complies with all the requirements of that section of the statute, and was sufficient.\nIt is also said section 41 should be so construed as to require the affidavit mentioned in that section to show a compliance with the provisions of sections 38 and 39 of the Local Improvement act. Section 41 limits the affidavit to that section. Its language is, \u201cshowing a compliance with the requirements of this section.\u201d The statute does not require the affidavit to show a compliance with the requirements of sections 38 and 39 of said act, and the court did not err in overruling the objection.\nSecond\u2014It is next urged there was a variance between the first resolution of the board of local improvements and the ordinance in the description of the improvement. The resolution described the improvement as \u201ca system of brick and vitrified tile-pipe sewer,\u201d while the ordinance described it as \u201ca system of brick and vitrified tile-pipe sewers.\u201d The streets and character of the sewer in each street are described in the resolution as well as the ordinance, and the omission of the letter \u201cs\u201d in the word \u201csewers,\u201d in the resolution, could not have misled the property owners. The variance was immaterial and the objection was properly overruled.\nThird\u2014-The ordinance provided for house-slants every twenty-five feet, and it is urged such provision is unreasonable and an arbitrary subdivision of appellants\u2019 lands. It has been repeatedly held that such provision in an ordinance is not unreasonable or an arbitrary subdivision of the property owner\u2019s land. Vandersyde v. People, 195 Ill. 200; City of Chicago v. Corcoran, 196 id. 146; Duane v. City of Chicago, 198 id. 471; Walker v. City of Chicago, 202 id. 531.\nFourth\u2014The appellants called John A. May, the superintendent of special assessments, ,and sought to show by him that he had not investigated the district in which it was proposed to locate said system of sewers, in accordance with the provisions of section 39 of the Local Improvement act. In the report filed by the superintendent of assessments he certified he had made such investigation, and the appellants could not impeach his report by showing by him he had not discharged his duty in' that particular. Wright v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 285; Quick v. Village of River Forest, 130 id. 323.\nFinding no reversible error in this record, the judgment of the county court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Hand" } ], "attorneys": [ "MacChESNEy & Bradley, and F. W. Becker, for appellants.", "Robert Redeield, and Rranic Johnston, Jr., (James H. Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Washington Park Club et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed December 20, 1905\nRehearing denied Feb. 8, 1906.\n1. Special assessments\u2014final hearing includes pronouncing of judgment. Under section 41 of the Local Improvement act, requiring an affidavit to be filed before \u201cfinal hearing,\u201d it is proper to allow a new affidavit to be filed after the evidence has been introduced and the arguments made and the court has taken the case under advisement but has not pronounced judgment.\n2. Same\u2014affidavit which shows compliance with section 41 is sufficient. The affidavit required by section 41 of the Improvement act to be filed before final hearing, showing compliance with that section, need not show compliance with sections 38. and 39.\n3. Same\u2014what is not a material variance between a resolution and an ordinance. There is not a material variance between the description of an improvement in the resolution as a system of \u201cbrick and vitrified tile-pipe sewer\u201d and the description in the ordinance as a \u201csystem of brick and vitrified tile-pipe sewers,\u201d where the streets and sewers are each described in both the resolution and the ordinance.\n4. Same\u2014provision for house-slants every twenty-five feet is not unwarranted. A provision in a sewer ordinance for house-slants every twenty-five feet is not unwarranted, as being unreasonable and an arbitrary subdivision of the abutting property.\n5. Same\u2014certified report cannot be impeached by party who made it. Where the superintendent of special assessments certifies in his report that he has investigated the district covered by the proposed system of sewers, as required by section 39 of the Improvement act, property owners capnot impeach such report by calling him as a witness to testify that he has not investigated the district.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nMacChESNEy & Bradley, and F. W. Becker, for appellants.\nRobert Redeield, and Rranic Johnston, Jr., (James H. Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0323-01", "first_page_order": 323, "last_page_order": 325 }