TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McChesney v. City of Chicago

A. B. McChesney v. The City of Chicago

McChesney v. City of Chicago, 37 N.E. 872 (Ill. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1894
Judges
Phillips
Citations
37 N.E. 872151 Ill. 307
Headnotes
1. Bill of Exceptions—when necessary. The object of a bill of exceptions is to preserve in the record such matters as occur during the trial which are not a part of the record, and in such cases, the erroneous ruling must be excepted to. But where an error appears in the record as made up by the clerk, no exception to the judgment of the court is necessary. 2. Where objections to the confirmation of the roll in a special assessment proceedings are based on the insufficiency of the ordinance, and are questions of law only, presenting nothing to be tried by a jury, no bill of exceptions is necessary to enable the objectors to assign for error the ruling of the court upon such objections.
Summary
Writ of Error to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Phillips

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Phillips delivered the opinion of the Court:

The County Court of Cook county entered a judgment confirming a special assessment on proceedings under an ordinance of the city of Chicago, and this writ of error is sued out on that record. The ordinance under which those proceedings were had was held invalid by this court in Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 144 Ill. 391 . The contention of defendant in error is, that no exception was taken to the order of the court overruling the objections of the plaintiff in error to the confirmation of the assessment roll, and, therefore, error can not be assigned upon such order.

The objections made to the confirmation of the assessment roll were based on the insufficiency of the ordinance, and were questions of law, and presented nothing to be tided by a jury. The order of court shows that fact. No bill of exceptions is necessary, as the object of a bill of exceptions is to preserve in the record such matters as occur during the trial which are not a part of the record, and in such cases the erroneous ruling must be excepted to. Randolph v. Emerick, 13 Ill. 344 ; Zimmerman v. Cowan, 107 id. 631. Where an error appears in the record proper as made up by the clerk, no exception to the judgment of the court is necessary. The Wiggins Ferry Co. v. The People ex rel., 101 Ill. 446 .

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 11900: 11901: 11902: 11903: 11904: 11915: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burke v. Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co.108 Ill. App. 565 (1903)
  2. City of Rockford v. Compton115 Ill. App. 406 (1904)
  3. Radeke Brewing Co. v. Granger101 Ill. App. 599 (1902)
  4. Hagen Paper Co. v. East St. Louis Publishing Co.269 Ill. 535 (1915)
  5. Whalen v. Muma94 Ill. App. 488 (1901)
  6. City of Marshall v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.80 Ill. App. 531 (1899)

Most recent

  1. Hagen Paper Co. v. East St. Louis Publishing Co.269 Ill. 535 (1915)
  2. City of Rockford v. Compton115 Ill. App. 406 (1904)
  3. Burke v. Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co.108 Ill. App. 565 (1903)
  4. Radeke Brewing Co. v. Granger101 Ill. App. 599 (1902)
  5. Whalen v. Muma94 Ill. App. 488 (1901)
  6. Deffenbaugh v. Andrew91 Ill. App. 142 (1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Randolph v. Emerick, 13 Ill. 344 (1851) 19
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. People ex rel. Weber, 101 Ill. 446 (1882) 13
Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 33 N.E. 602 (Ill. 1893) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list