{
  "id": 8502260,
  "name": "F. A. Bryan v. City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryan v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817772
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817772
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2850,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0156884469066155e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5433700960944055
    },
    "sha256": "7a7674b1b0ef92c3b3996bc59fc52ae1067f7db827c12a00fa340d20f0b5e54f",
    "simhash": "1:7ac54bf254ac0c48",
    "word_count": 498
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:14.980306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. A. Bryan v. City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McAllister\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Cook county, in favor of the.city, upon a warrant for a special assessment for improving a portion of West Randolph street in the city of Chicago.\nThe ordinance under which the assessment was levied, ordered \u201cthat West Randolph street, from the-west line of Hal-sted street to the east curb line of Carpenter street, be curbed with curb walls where the same are not already built, and where the same are not now in good and sound condition; West Randolph street from the west line of Halsted street to the east curb line of Carpenter street, and curbing with curb stones where the same are not already set, and where the same are not now in a good and sou/nd condition; said Randolph street from the west curb line of Carpenter street to the western terminus of said West Randolph street at Union Parir, and filling, grading, and paving with wooden blocks said West Randolph street from the west line of Halsted street to the western terminus of said West Randolph street at Union Park, (excepting a space sixteen feet wide in the middle of said West Randolph street, from the west line of Halsted street to the western terminus of said West Randolph street at Union Park, now occupied by the tracks of the Chicago West Division Railway Company,) in the manner particularly described in the accompanying drawing and in the ordinance herewith submitted, directing the doing of the work.\u201d\nThis' ordinance is an attempt to vest the board of public works with an illegal discretion; it tends to open the way to an unfair assessment, and to favoritism and fraud. It falls directly within the grounds of condemnation stated in Foss v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 354.\nThe ordinance was void, and the city collector had no au-, thorityto apply for judgment.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McAllister"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Barker & Waite, and Mr. Wm. HopkiNS, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. M. F. Tuley, Corporation Counsel, for the appellee:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. A. Bryan v. City of Chicago.\nSpecial assessment \u2014 illegal ordinance. Where the common council passed an ordinance for the improvement of a street, and ordered curb walls to be built where the same were not already built, and in good and sound condition, but it did not specify what portion was in good and sound condition and what was not: Held, that the ordinance was an attempt to confer on the board of public works an illegal discretion which would tend to open the way to an unfair assessment, and to favoritism and fraud. It is governed by the case of Foss v. Oity of Chicago, 56 Ill. 354, and is held to be void, and the collector had no authority to apply for judgment.\nAppeal' from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts appear in the opinion.\nMessrs. Barker & Waite, and Mr. Wm. HopkiNS, for the appellant.\nMr. M. F. Tuley, Corporation Counsel, for the appellee:"
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 510
}