Skip to main content
· 1/18/1888

Wilbur v. City of Springfield

Citations

  • 123 Ill. 395
  • 14 N.E. 871

Syllabus

<p>1. Special taxation for local improvements—rule of uniformity not regarded—constitutionality. An ordinance for the improvement of a street by special taxation of lots fronting thereon, in proportion to the number of feet frontage, is not in contravention of the constitution, as violating the principle of uniformity and equality required in taxation.</p> <p>2. Same—ordinance—whether embracing more than one improvement. The fact that an ordinance may embrace many streets and parts of streets required to be curbed and paved, will not necessarily render the same void, as embracing more than one improvement.</p> <p>3. The fact that the ordinance in some sections speaks of the improvement to be made as “improvements,” is not sufficient, of itself, to show that several distinct improvements are proposed. The court will rather look to the entire ordinance, and find from the language used, in connection with the object sought to be attained, the intent of the law makers, and give it effect. So where the whole scope of the ordinance appears to be to provide for a single scheme of improvement, the use of the word “improvements” in some parts, will not control in the construction of the ordinance.</p> <p>4. Same—abutting lots—inside lots not included—an ordinance construed. An ordinance for the improvement of certain streets, which provides for the levy, assessment and collection of the cost upon the lots, parts of lots and lands upon the streets or parts of streets to be improved, in proportion to the frontage upon such streets, etc., will be held to apply only to the lots or parts of lots bounded by the lines of the streets severally to be improved, and not to inside lots not abutting upon such streets.</p> <p>5. Same—omission to provide for a levy and assessment in respect to a part of a proposed improvement. Although an ordinance proposes certain improvements in respect to a portion of which it omits to provide for any levy or assessment, the mere fact of such omission w

Judges: Shope

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.