Skip to main content
· 9/15/1871

Rich v. City of Chicago

Citations

  • 59 Ill. 286

Syllabus

<p>1. Special assessment—oath of commissioners. Where a special assessment was made for the improvement of a street in a city, it is not an objection to the validity of the assessment that the commissioners took the oath required by the city charter, and also superaddcd other clauses not inconsistent with the oath required by the charter, or any of its provisions.</p> <p>2. Notice—publication—city neiospaper. Where the city charter required the common council to designate a newspaper in which notices and the proceedings of the corporation should be published, it appeared that such notices and proceedings were published in a particular paper, and it was recognized by the officials as the corporation newspaper,—a certificate of publication given by the publisher, was offered in evidence: Held, that such facts, as to the public, and third persons, were prima facie evidence that the paper had been designated as the corporation paper, and the appointment need not be proved by producing the record showing the appointment; that it is similar to proof that a person has acted as a public officer, which is prima facie, without producing his commission.</p> <p>3. Former decisions—aicarding compensation, when private property is talcenfor public use. The determination of what is “just compensation” for private property when taken for public use, is a judicial act, which can. properly be performed only by the judicial department of the government, and former decisions of this court holding the award in that regard, of persons not of the judicial department, such as the commissioners of the board of public works in the city of Chicago, to be conclusive, are overruled.</p> <p>4. Constitution—eminent domain—trial by jury. Where a city charter gave to the common council, and the board of public works, power to assess damages on the condemnation of land for the widening of a street, and it was objected that the act was unconstitutional, because the owner was deprived of a jury: Held,

Judges: McAllister

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.