Case ID: ill_247/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwin B. Sheldon, Appellee, vs. The City of Chicago, Appellant.
    
      Opinion filed October 28, 1910
    
    
      Rehearing denied Dec. 9, 1910.
    
    1. Plats—fee of all streets in original town of Chicago is in the city. The fee of all streets in the original town of Chicago is in the city of Chicago without regard to the date when the canal commissioners conveyed the abutting lots, whether before or after the adoption of the act of 1833, concerning plats.
    2. The principles involved in this case are fully discussed in the opinions rendered in Ryerson v. City of Chicago, (ante) p. 185,) and Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 192.)
    Dunn, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Julian W. Mack, Judge, presiding.
    This was one of eight bills in chancery severally filed in the circuit court of Cook county by property owners in the city of Chicago whose property abuts upon the public streets of said city, against the city of Chicago, to enjoin the city from enforcing, as against their respective properties, the provisions' of an ordinance passed by the common council of the said city on February 5,. 1906, which ordinance provides no person shall use any space underneath the surface of any street or other public grounds in the city of Chicago, or construct or maintain any structure thereunder, without first obtaining a permit so to do from the commissioner of public works of said city. The complainant is the owner of the north-west corner of Lake and LaSalle streets, which has a frontage of sixty feet on Lake street and a frontage of ninety feet on LaSalle street, which premises are improved with a five-story and. basement brick and stone building, and adjoining the said building, and beneath the sidewalks upon both frontages, are situated subways, which complainant uses in connection with his building. It also appears from the record that the premises of the complainant are situated in the original plat of the original town of Chicago. The trial court, upon a hearing, entered a decree enjoining the city from enforcing said ordinance against the complainant as to said property, and the city has prosecuted an appeal.
    Edward J. Brundagb, Corporation Counsel, and William D. Barge, for appellant.
    Wilson, Moore & McIlvaine, for appellee.
   Per Curiam :

The principles involved in this case are fully discussed in the opinions filed in the cases of Ryerson v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 185,) and Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 192,) and according to the holdings in those cases the city is the owner of the fee in the streets adjoining the appellee’s property, and the city should not have been enjoined from enforcing the ordinance against the appellee.

It is sought to distinguish this case from the Ryerson case and the Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. case, on the ground that the lots of appellee were conveyed to him prior to the passage of the act of 1833, concerning plats. We think there is no valid distinction as to where the fee to the streets in the original town of Chicago rests, by reason of the date when the canal commissioners conveyed the abutting lots, but that it must be held that the fee in all of the streets in the original town of Chicago rests in the city of Chicago.

The decree of the circuit court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Dunn, dissenting.