TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Chicago v. Marsh

The City of Chicago v. Marshall S. Marsh

City of Chicago v. Marsh, 102 N.E. 170 (Ill. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 18, 1913
Judges
Dunn
Citations
102 N.E. 170259 Ill. 68
Headnotes
1. Special assessments—when an objection that an ordinance changed width of a roadway cannot be considered. An objection that a paving ordinance provides for paving a roadway of a specified width, which it is claimed is greater than the established roadway, will not be considered, where the abstract does not show that the objection was made in the county court or what the width of the roadway was prior to the passage of the ordinance. 2. The objection with regard to the sufficiency of the engineer’s estimate was considered and decided adversely to the appellants’ contention here, in City of Chicago v. Underwood, 258 111. 116.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. John E. Owens, 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 — Dunn

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

Mr. Justice Dunn delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county overruling the legal objections of the appellants and confirming an assessment for the cost of pav'ing Belmont avenue, in the city of Chicago.

The first objection argued is, that the estimate of the engineer was insufficient as to the construction of new catch-basins, the adjusting of catch-basins and constructing and connecting catch-basin inlets. The identical objections were considered and overruled in City of Chicago v. Underwood, 258 Ill. 116 .

The only other objection argued is, that the ordinance directed the roadway to be paved to a| width of forty-two feet whereas the roadway had been previously established at thirty-eight feet, while the estimate of the engineer and the recommendation of the board of local improvements contains no reference to the proposed change. The abstract does not show that this objection was made in the county court or that the width of the roadway was changed. Its width prior to the ordinance does not appear.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Pollock v. Raboin146 N.E. 538 (Ill. 1925)

Most recent

  1. People ex rel. Pollock v. Raboin146 N.E. 538 (Ill. 1925)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
City of Chicago v. Underwood, 101 N.E. 261 (Ill. 1913) 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