Skip to main content
· 5/9/1893

Gage v. Chicago

Citations

  • 146 Ill. 499
  • 34 N.E. 1034

Syllabus

<p>1. SpeoiaIi assessment—right to have objections to confirmation sub~ mitled to a jury. On application for confirmation of a special assessment, made for the purpose of raising money to pay the compensation for lánd condemned for a street, an objection that the description of the land condemned was illegal and void, presents a mere question of law, not proper to be submitted to a jury.</p> <p>2. In such case, whéther the description of the land sought to be condemned, in the verdict of the jury, is so imperfect and uncertain that no valid judgment can be rendered upon it, is a matter for the court to determine, which is to be decided by an inspection of the records in the condemnation proceedings, the interpretation of which is purely a matter of law.</p> <p>3. On application to confirm special assessments for a local improvement, only such objections as question the amount of benefits returned against the objector’s premises should be submitted to a jury.</p> <p>4. On a proceeding to confirm a special assessment levied to raise money to pay the compensation awarded the owners of land condemned for a street, an objection that the land had been dedicated to the public for a street by the owners thereof, and hence the condemnation was improper, does not present an issue which the property owner is entitled to have submitted to a jury.</p> <p>5. In such case, when the court, in the presence of the jury, hears the evidence of a previous dedication of the land sought to be condemned, and it falls far short of showing the dedication, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to pass upon the objection and find that a dedication has been proved, is not error.</p> <p>6. Eminent domain—sufficiency’ of description of the land sought to be taken. Land sought to be condemned for a street was described as “lots B and 0, (except the east 66 feet of the west 248.95 feet thereof,) •of Auburn Park, being a subdivision of,” etc. The jury described this property as follows: “In

Judges: Bailey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.