{
  "id": 5620861,
  "name": "Henry H. Gage v. The People ex rel. John J. Hanberg, County Treasurer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gage v. People ex rel. Hanberg",
  "decision_date": "1905-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 Ill. 424"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 3954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "sha256": "be5ecd4a1a9789effd769ff68610ff0c6b10f17d14dec80a4012865b7aaed507",
    "simhash": "1:c92332adda056582",
    "word_count": 679
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:05.407737+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry H. Gage v. The People ex rel. John J. Hanberg, County Treasurer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is a consolidation of two appeals, one of which is from a judgment of the county court of Cook county for the fifth installment of a special assesment for paving Fulton and other streets, and the other from a judgment of the same court for the fifth installment of a special assessment for paving Turner avenue. Both judgments were rendered at the June term, 1905, of the county court. Objections were filed by Henry H. Gage, the owner of the lots against which the judgments were rendered, and were in each in- \u25a0 stance overruled. Gage prosecuted an appeal from each judgment, and those appeals have been consolidated in this court, as the same grounds are relied upon in each for reversal.\nThe first point made by appellant in each of these cases is thus stated in his brief:\n\u201cNo certificate of cost was filed pursuant to section 84 of the act of 1901, which was a condition precedent to the issue of the warrant,\u2014that is, to the existence of delinquency, without which there was no legal right to apply for judgment and order of sale.\u201d\nThe certificate required by section 84, supra, is to be made by the board of local improvements and filed with the court in which the assessment was confirmed, within thirty days after the final completion and acceptance of the work. In one of these cases the work was completed and accepted on September 20, 1899, and in the other on July 14, 1900. As section 84 of the act of 1901 became effective July 1, 1901, it is apparent that it was impossible to comply with that section by filing the certificates thereby required in the cases now before us.\nAppellant urges that inasmuch as section 99 of the Local Improvement act of 1901, beiqg section 605 of chapter 24, Hurd\u2019s Revised Statutes of 1901, contains this provision: \u201cWhen any installment of an assessment confirmed under prior acts shall mature, proceedings to return the same delinquent, and to collect the same shall conform to the provisions of this act,\u201d section 84 of the act 1901 is thereby made applicable in this proceeding, and that upon that act becoming effective it at once became the duty of the proper officers to file the certificate required by that act, which appellant urges would have been a compliance with that act \u201cexcept as to time.\u201d\nWe think the language quoted from section 99, supra, \u25a0 cannot be construed to require the filing of a certificate under section 84, supra, in a case where the time within which that certificate is by the latter section required to be filed had elapsed long prior to the date on which that section came into force.\nThe other errors assigned which are called to our attention are identical with those passed upon adversely to the contention of appellant in the consolidated cases of Gage v. People, (ante, p. 369.) It is unnecessary to repeat here the reasoning of the court found in the opinion in those cases. The views there expressed control here.\nThe judgments of the county court will be affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Becker, for appellant.",
      "Robert Redeield,and John M. O\u2019Connor, (James H. Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry H. Gage v. The People ex rel. John J. Hanberg, County Treasurer.\nOpinion filed December 20, 1905\nRehearing denied Feb. 21, 1906.\nSpecial assessments\u2014section 84 of the act of 1901 does not apply to improvements already completed. Section 84 of the Local Improvement act, (Laws of 1901, p. 114,) requiring the board of local improvements to certify the cost of the improvement to the court within thirty days after final completion and acceptance of the improvement, has no application to improvements completed and accepted more than thirty days prior to the time such section became effective, notwithstanding the language of section 99 thereof.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nF. W. Becker, for appellant.\nRobert Redeield,and John M. O\u2019Connor, (James H. Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee.\nConsolidated case, being Nos. 4503 and 4515."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 426
}