Scammon v. City of Chicago
Citations
- 42 Ill. 192
Syllabus
<p>1. Special assessments—of the collector’s warrant—manner of signing the same. The use of the word “ countersigned,” to the left of the signature of the comptroller, affixed to the collector’s warrant issued on a judgment upon a special assessment, does not vitiate the signature of the comptroller, which, in such case, is, in fact, “ affixed,” and that is all the law requires. The prefix does not remove his name from the warrant nor render it any the less his signature. * </p> <p>2. Same —for what purposes a special assessment may he made in the city of Chicago. The act of 1865, amendatory of the charter of the city of Chicago, authorizes special assessments for repairing the streets, and it is for the city council to determine in what mode the reparations shall he made.</p> <p>3. So, if they decide that a street which has once been graveled shall be repaired by re-graveling, that is within the power conferred by that act.</p> <p>4 Same — requisites of the assessment roll—of the mode of apportioning benefits. It is not necessary that the assessment roll, which is returned to the common council for the action of that body, should show a valuation of the .respective pieces of property assessed. The manner in which the “ benefits ” are to be adjusted in such cases is left to the discretion of the commissioners, to be exercised by them, subj ect to the supervision of the courts upon any charge of fraud, corruption or oppression, or of departure from the rule of equality prescribed by the Constitution and the legislature.</p> <p>5. Same —public grounds must bearr their proper sha/re of the burden. Eeal estate owned by a municipal corporation is not exempted from its proper share of the burden of constructing public improvements. So, where the city owns a public park which is bounded by streets for the improvement of which an assessment is being made, the city must contribute to the necessary expense in common with the owners of private property interested in the same i
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “A juror who falsely misrepresents his interest or situation, or conceals a material fact relevant to the controversy, is guilty of misconduct, and such misconduct is prejudicial to the party, for it impairs his right to challenge.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.