{ "id": 5626753, "name": "Nathan William MacChesney et al. v. The City of Chicago", "name_abbreviation": "MacChesney v. City of Chicago", "decision_date": "1907-04-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "215", "last_page": "217", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 Ill. 215" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "225 Ill. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3329997 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/225/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ill. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3298986 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/208/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 Ill. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5514719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/162/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ill. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3310357 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/212/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ill. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3340625 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/222/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 Ill. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 835371 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/152/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3329997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/225/0218-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 323, "char_count": 5138, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0678041250728424e-07, "percentile": 0.5588269818047307 }, "sha256": "bf9964bc720870eb4e2b72de578423e6f1d618a05a66e98a4b9d3b76020cdac7", "simhash": "1:2d7767b2860aa4f2", "word_count": 880 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:43.577041+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Nathan William MacChesney et al. v. The City of Chicago." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis is an appeal from confirmation of a special assessment for a system of sewers in certain streets in the city of Chicago.\nIt is urged that the ordinance contains no provisions for an item in the estimate of $11,500 for rock excavation. The facts in this record on this question are identical with those in Gage v. City of Chicago, 225 Ill. 218, and our conclusion in that case must control here. The holding in that case, and in Rich v. City of Chicago, 152 Ill. 18, is conclusive also on the point whether the city of Chicago is without authority to levy a special assessment for a sewer on the ground that such power is vested exclusively in the board of trustees of the sanitary district. It is not shown that the lands here in question are connected with or drained by the drainage system of said sanitary district. We express no opinion as to the law on this question when such lands are so connected and proof is made of that fact.\nIt is also urged that the estimate is not sufficiently itemized as to house and catch-basin slants and street connections. In Lyman v. Town of Cicero, 222 Ill. 379, relied upon by appellants, a cinder foundation for a curb was not referred to in any way in the estimate although provided for in the ordinance. In that case we said (p. 383) : \u201cThe extent to which separate items are to be set down evidently depends upon the nature of the improvement, which may all be fairly included in one item or may consist of several.\u201d The necessary house and catch-basin slants and street connections are all referred to and included in the estimate but not in separate items. We think the estimate is not erroneous in this regard.\nThe point as to the estimate containing the words \u201clawful expenses attending the same,\u201d has been considered and disposed of contrary to the contentions of the appellants in Lanphere v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill. 440, and other cases.\nIt is further urged that there is a variance between the first resolution and the ordinance, in that the former does not and the latter does create and\" describe a drainage district. We held in Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 162 Ill. 505, that no assessment could be valid, based upon the prospective future connection with a sewer, unless a drainage district was created or some provision made which would eventually effect such connection. Under this doctrine it is insisted that not only the ordinance, but the resolution, should describe this drainage district, so that proper consideration could be given at the public hearing to the proposed improvement. Section 39 of the statute on local improvements (Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1905, p. 413,) provides that it shall be the duty of the officer who spreads the assessment, \u201cwhen the proposed improvement is for the construction of a sewer, to investigate and report the district which will be benefited by such proposed sewer, describing the same by boundaries,\u201d but the act does not provide that the resolution shall describe the drainage district. We can not see how it would be of any special benefit to the property owners at the- public hearing to have the resolution describe it unless all the property owners within the drainage district were notified of the public hearing. Section 7 of the Local Improvement act (Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1905, p. 406,) only required that the persons who paid general taxes \u201cof land fronting on the proposed improvement\u201d be notified. We held in City of Chicago v. Kerfoot & Co. 208 Ill. 387, that the legislature' has authority to prescribe the steps and course necessary to be taken for such improvement, and when it has done so the courts cannot require more. The argument that it would be. advantageous to the property owners to have the original resolution' describe the drainage district should be addressed to the legislature. Such is not now the requirement of the statute.\nFinding no material error in the record the judgment of the county court will be affirmed. J\nT , . , Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam :" } ], "attorneys": [ "MacChesney & Bradley, and F. W. Becker, for appellants.", "Charles H. Mitchell, and Frank Johnston, Jr., (James Hamilton Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Nathan William MacChesney et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1907\nRehearing denied June 6, 1907.\n1. Special assessments'\u2014house-slants need not he provided for in estimate in separate items. It is not essential that the house and catch-basin slants required in a sewer improvement be referred to in the estimate in separate items if they are all, in fact, included in the estimate.\n2. Same\u2014resolution for a sewer improvement need not describe the drainage district. It is not necessary that the resolution for a sewer improvement shall create and describe the drainage district, and the fact that the ordinance does create and describe the district does not make a variance between the resolution and ordinance.\n3. Other questions raised in this case are controlled by the decisions in Gage v. Chicago, 225 Ill. 218, and Lanphere v. Chicago, 212 id. 440.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. H. HinEbaugh, Judge, presiding.\nMacChesney & Bradley, and F. W. Becker, for appellants.\nCharles H. Mitchell, and Frank Johnston, Jr., (James Hamilton Lewis, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0215-01", "first_page_order": 215, "last_page_order": 217 }