, 1861-03-21
Law: 1NTELLrGENCE.
The Lasa1la Street Assessments.
In suPzR1on cornT Or CHICAGO, William Wheclc,
rr thn City OF Chicago:

II
rf, tho City Of Chicago:
OPINION BT:CuIEF JUSTICE WILSON.
This Is IN action OF assnmpeit to recover Of the
city the amount pf an asses:ment made upon the
authority Of he eisy for property Of the plaintiff
The action is based upon the assumption that
the city promised, to collect and pay over the
amount Of the aSeessme1t within reasonable
tiYne. eud that 1t has tat1ed to do 20.
The power exerflsed ia the right Of eminent do
main conferred u1on the city bY its charter. The
city having eIeIefseu tile power, the law imposed
he obligation to}procecd with reasonable t,iIi-
genoa. and one wlsse property is thus appropziat-
cd to onblic use nay compel the city By nlandanna
70 proceed, aud collect anu pay over euch ASSESS
lii: aisgtus o., the aty Of chicsgo, IS III. a;o; In
this class Of eases, ,,Nhere property may be taken
against tbs will 9f The owncs, ,hs Constitution
requires thst comRensation be made and jmposes
das qpon e eSpo1ssq}n
be SIZED, au action IN the Is naaiutainabls for
negligence unreasonable delay In the pe:fortc-
snee q its & anay; ~. iMEeaogh-4he &c AsEor &C. Of
I understand 1aeAupremc Court to have decided
in this case not mHeay that an aeion ofus5ampstt
the city had collected the afse=sent, ot OF this
there can be no doubt1 but tar this action for no:
collecting In reasonable time Is matntatnafle:
| 20. tho only qaest1nn remaining Is whether the
facts chow that heklefentant has delayed IN IN
reasonable time ins4eqalecting thi. assessment.
Connon Council 81 tie 9th Of June, 1856 Aid on
to collect the asaesteant. and the Collector pro-
balance uncoIiected 5niy 2, lss6, and on that day
| the Common Council made au order that tile lots
| on which assessments were unpaid be sold to pay
assessment and dfss1edWarzant-
This suit was conFnieuced March an3, 1859, a.
most three year, afttr the assessment was coz l1m
I'd, and two and half years after the Council Or
The lien upon the Enis by the Charter continued
only two years from. the confirmation of the a.
sessment. The warrant for the sale Of petaonal
property to satisfy assessment having beon retnrh-
ed, and two years hayipg c1spsed afte7 the cont1r
alton without collecting The assessment it il ap-
parent that the city had no power whsn this suit
WIS commenced TO collect the assessment, and 4
Court would not even award nlandslnus to eoHl-
}ands aiter tic lien I'D ceased: Tie OILY remsdy
The city by faifnSAo collect the assessment Of
those assessed TO p4yit had deprived the pla1nttR
Of the special proyision the las had mat1e Tor Gas
|'compenEation, and !withou! Inch proris:oa, the
1snd could not be taken for public use. It il clear
that il he cannot recover in this action, he cannot
obtain compensation at all.
! And as to the question OF unreasonable delay,
the Legislature, 1t Weuld seem, had settled that BY
beyond thc two years deprived tie pIain!ifof tlls
the Charter, and 1t difficult to conceive what de-
lay would be unreasonable If this not. for 1uE
ther delay for any length Of time would place Ito
] plaintiff in no Worse position.
It is insisted by tbs CRY that 1t was prevented
from collecting In consequence OF 1ujuuc,ione. II
this Ia 80 by tbs charter, tho time during which
they were eojoiuel Is to be excluded IN reckoning
The dfst injunettoa was 3ssued at the eult ofthc
Boarl Of Supervisors OF Cook coun1y ys. The City.
September 1856, to restrain them from selling tho
Court House Square upon the warrant 1ssaed to col
lector Colby on the a6ih Of july 1856 under or
I der Of the Common Council. Thr second iniunc-
l - ~ 4t,o
29th day Of January, 1857 Others threatened to en-
jufu and by agreement between them and the City
Attorneg-the city agreed not to proceed against
those parties and thaE they would abide by the de-
cision in the case Of Roscoe.
The whole amount assessed upon the 1a1 ol
Roscoe aud the other parties to the agreement wa
| only 81, ,236. 36.39-while the balance due on tbs Gs
easement roll over what had been collected, was
il The csse Of the County rs The CITY. this Court
valid-yet that case not dismissed till April I
1859, four months after tie Suprem- Court Il The
case Of The City r. Colby. 20 II, lid, lad decided
was dismissed n or.5 1883. Admitting that with
out regard to the cpuarn1atory act Of February
1851, tho lien would contfEnc upon the lots Of Roa
coc and those who naade the agreement 10 abiae
the event Of that suit, am at u l0ss to discover
how this could continue the lien npon the proptr,
! Of those who had obtained no Injunction or cx
to sell such property II this doctrine is suatain
ed then one man b.: entoining the tnle of tinglt
IL an nay sonnue 1he Hen nR11
city from all further proceedings It'll suck case |:
decided The complainant in such cnse wonlt
have no motive to move in ths case, and tho city
I could If she desired keep mems property eECnm
bered By lien perpetua1y. Such Il doctrine il no
sustained upon auy legal principle. The 1hjunc
tfon only operates upon the lots to which it 1Giers
and the exception iath charter extending lie le,
By reason OF tie 1ni7n.13sn extend no further
| The Supreme court ia the case OF The City rs
Colby, 20 Ill, 614, decided that the order Of th
I fnrE
| that the order conld only be made by the Count,
| Court, under the act OF March 1st, 1854. This de
cision sEas made at the November term. 1s5s-mor
than two years after the confirmation Of the rs
| aesnuent. In consequence Of this aud the act q
Feb. 1G, 1857, the Court Of Common Pleas refuse
Judgment against the lots assessed III Jauuar
1859. No application WAS nude for judgment 4
January 1858, to the Court Of Common rleas.at til
I term ut which judgments were rendered npnn II:
and assessment rol1t, except by Collector Coli,
. But Judgment Nas refused on the ground that h
Feb. 1s5,as Wa. Insisted by tic liz attorney. b.
ter thia Judgment mtght t haye hee Obtained fret
: Court Of C,mmon Pleas, JaA uary 1858, agalnt
most OF the property.
tioa could be made 10. Judgment TIL tue fu1uwlu
January, and after ths lien upon the lots had e;
pited. There was. therefore, no 1aehes in not Al
plying for judgment alter that deeiaion for, unfo
tunately. it too late. The act Of 1857 had cu1
] drmed tho assessment 90 3. to appropriate Ii
plaintiffs land, and the City could not obtain iud
nent against the assessed lots becanse tho lie
: had exptred-the new act making no provision Il
, But it il coptended BY tho City, that the who
Ba i oa ha aesn Il gF9qea ec
E upon this branch Of the argument excePtas to Il
dollar mark queat1on. go called, for ii the act
d February lo 1851 makes re aSse5s'ncnt ya'id,
i sessment was invalid independent OF the act.
d Numerous authorities have been cited to aho
!. that the Legislature cannot make yal1d void ac
| Th{ Il 4f1rhft 1ntf RI oil, ,ro
wherein The Legislature Assumes Judicial function
n and attempts to settle the rights Of property b
: tween man and nan, aud must OF the cases cite
embody this principle, and fully subscribe to ii
r doctrine;
,e'ion TO Sc Tor the .n e
Legislature have boen declared to be elective
7 making, irEeguLr and void proceedings valid zs
asassn ". Chestnut, II III. aaa; sehofeId ". n;
kius. = Il1s. C.; State va City of Newark, Dutc
' Ct, 1ss; Municipality No rs. Wheeler, 70 L.; 4
9, 7as; CITY 81 New Orleans F. cordsyille, "a |
!, Schenly ~. CommonWealth, 36 Penn. Tia Case
.. Aid Il there were no authority. az, ut a 10
sa% s % Se Tns
slature under the Constitution has ta
" private property for public use-Euh]ect only
e satton sat Is made The Iegisiassre ~ nsy also aaths
n iza corporations to take private property for puh
]. use on the same conditions: Johnson Is, job
| H.E r..
Now wbsteYer msJ be- fhe technical defects
this assessment inasmuch as compensation n
J., provided. The Legis ature might have author1z
sy to saks shs PsoPsy In thu ssss
D. as the law atood, mauy provisions were not Col
a | Piled with. II they might do II in the first |
70 ~ What hey nj ght have omitted; Il being matt
ht OF discretion to insist upon there not in the Il,
:, instance TIE city is deprived Of no right, for
T. act che Is obtaining what she sought to do, b
| faila1 n effect bY her own e7TnrH fniSfaEt
And the owner Of the land Is teprired Of no rig
for he has his compensation secured, and the pu
liz upon that condition have TiSht to his land.
n In relation 10 The dollar mark. several casss
ha cided By the Supreme Court have been referr
ne to-Jackaon ye. Cummings, Is Ii.s. 40; Laxren
"a Gibson ~. The City Of Chicago q lis. 56a; F
~ piugeE " Erbey, Is Lls. 521 gude.s land tht
en- decisions to establish 1hat an assea=ment Viii
~ he Court viii moi intend that certain figures ne
u, dollars cents, unless there ara sce charactc
On marks; dgnres, or words to indicate What Is
as indicating Gpiazs: and u Gibson IS. chisasSs )
~ us. 566), ChieeJustica Cation, In delivering 1
an :. In the assessment Eol! sra tvp columns. c
headed 'yqsration' and the other *aseessment.
NJ asch Of which certain Gsurr1 ara set down. I
-. tween the and the mex. TO tSs last Q Is red Il
I drawn, which may be fafry understood to mt
sse twenty Thousand eight hHn9.sd ald fourteen
tom of the c5iamn u found 10 be the sum Of all
., agures III the column ADORE, We are reasonably
eb formed that the figures above are designed for
hv lara and cents although therr Is nothing In
"3 W column s6ove 10 iasieste whist sAoas figures vi
LUZ intended to staud for"
hit understand rom this 1ano.a .ee lint In i
caaa th- sl.,,.sme Lourt held tie assessment
an sassns certain Dd5g1a Su5 The Sis5
~ tisl. II hcInr an assessment for improving uE
the nj chapter 81 Charter, and mt for opening s.i