, 1866-03-15

I fIp
ordinance p :aed the sd Of MAY 1s5S thail resd
as inIlorr-and then introduces prostt,ou nesris
the eame IN sub:tance As that on The pasted papef
ut II + n issed On the PIT o. rhe rsllNa! CON
!e!ehtA A. beang 4 ssc,'on7 I" (serenh beeanse il
Was TIa!.sn S.sEs ~ tesshtl b! Ini.aks instead o
nnt declared how eecauu (scvcr) shslI rad. hut
have declared how section 8 {eisht) shall fesd
1nefe u no ambiguity IN the language Rsed. and
ihe1e section {ciyht) IN the ordinance referred
@ .o. 60 taai mere u section upon which the oru
But ii IL sald thst the Court IL 10 treat /, Al con
G tna n the rcles Of construction in reeu L
doubtless, correct Though, the form Of the ordt
nsnce II Legislative IL H. IN fact but prop oettinn
End when accepted. It becomes 4 contract betweer
ie ea.v 10 repent that proposition Is too c'ea,
iof argument, hut The question here, is whc!her In
my rule Of law. the Court can read S'' (eighi} ii
ttitnte one VOID oT known and definite rnesuins.
for smother word Of entirely different meauine, N
caae hss hcen cited containing such prot,oaiton,
as appneanis 70 contracts. OF statutes. and NO ee.
such proposition, and no such case or authority
can be found, l appsehend. On the other hano,
Courts Of Equity tnkc Jurisdiction to reform con
tracts IN case Of mistakes Of the character thus nl-
legged to be, npon satisfactory pzoof This fact oi
Itself tbows that no such Eu'e eHists. because IN
dlc,on. And spp,rhcnd upon the proof OF The
facts in ihis no Conrt Of Equity would aid the
fraudulent party, q those claiming under him, BY
reforming contract traudulmt]y altered. even The
failed 10 ctntummatc his fsud SO a1rolt-
y as 70 express the object intended ,by
aS oeo Te; Il as the pss 1a.saal 2 xss &c
altered The original ordnance, engineered the sup
Elemental ordinance throoeh the Council for II Is
way Company ease. IN his printed argument, Inn,
the proof positavc that tie extstenca OF rhi. or
d!nsnee Was nnkn9wn TO the officers and members
n f1Sy>AA A~n Ts,o1
point Ibis may be assumed to be tno as the stale
ineni oI counsel, though there il no proof Of the
b. e. V,ss ss Of e. ns9
This being 20, the supplemental ordinance MAS
supplemental 10 the original forgery. and intended
should be discovered. Il The paster VA part Of
The onginal ordinance Why the supplemental o1di-
Nance nearly the same N substance Is the paster,
i Il w intended "a sub*.,tu!e for section
copied u part ot the original Ordinance the paster
and With inc ordnance book N his Office be could
plying 1be supplemental ordinance to sechon :
l>tven.) be would be only repeating what vas A.
ready cuacted IN substance, By the pastet, and as
=, nto apea1sd by ,hat rsma[Saele seSard ths book
(ecveu, then It IL apparcnt that it was passed from
abundant cauuon, and with a design 10 make the
eom@9n Council asssssol5 after the fast. and this
fraud. II he was deserted at the last mnment Is ia
usual be. Or those claiming the benefit Of his in.
tended fssnd, would. sppschcnd, obtain sorry con
ISOLATION from corF Of equity, III asking It's aid to
enable Them to consumma,e The ftaud and no IN
Justice would be done. even IN form. to ans one By
refusing relief The Hallway Compauy--neithtrits
Otcefs nor membese-EncW anything abopt Il till
a thon time nGo, and Of conEre never accepted It,
and could not have acted with regard to it till quite
recently, Il Al all But Il II vas Otherwise, The re-
ku)t ~0uld be the came The Common Council IL
not the G.y. and does not own the property or 4n-
ehises Of the ctsy, and eauno, bind the city except
In ihe manner u 1s guinted out BY me charter.
specified, BY which the city can be bound, md
her property and franch1see disposed Of 10 corpoa
ions and 'ndiridua1s.
70 other Streets with psovaous similar to those Ia
the pasted paper. and this II argued, ehowt the
policy Of the city, and The inference to be dsaun Il
lar provision. Ii being proved shat such was not
misr'b!e On the otuc1 band The faet being proved,
Gil had no settled policy The subject, and ,Ais IL
expressly testified to bJ the Aldermen; and the
fact that there wss different prorition In the South
OF oou1piaint. But admitting that In rub.enuent
ordinances the Council adopted uniform order
and policy II has no bearing upon The question OF
forgery m this case. It only elbows that they tuade
different contracts atler.1d. The docsrine IN re-.
laton TO general statutes In p1ri ma.evsa, has no
application m this cla=. q casea-
1th Connecticut, r. 157.
Is eald that The provisions Of the supplemental
ortanance REID section {elsht} are Inconsistent
with those Of section {scveu.) II that Is So then
.he provisions Of section (sssen) must be mod1:
together. Du's;ecaton :elcht} as Il now ree.S.
relaes to the same eubec1 a. the f.st pars Of zee
lion tsesen. and makes the portion Of The stree.
condition, definite; which, In section (reyen} u
tndennite. Section tseEen) provides that The com
s15 .asn fes2 elSh. @ fte n eye2 street oceupisa
III good repair and condition. Eection (eiehtj
now Ieadt The said company shall i. respects
pas1nS sss1sizpe e. I'm. se, nlins plank
.aiiwny, o. any Of them. keep EIGHT feet In width
along the line Of eaid railway. on ut efreetl where
zone track Is constructed. and sixteen feet in
where two tracks are constructed. IN good repalf
..and condition. &C., 1t will be eeen thst
Section Setsht, refer to The e:s :usect =. the
consistency Or cnnHict between them. Section 8
(cichtl specifies the kind Of repairs which The
company ie to make and defines specially The pos-
don of the stTcet upon which the repairs are to be
made. both of which asc len indefinite by section
7(reEenl Section fe!Sht) IL explanatory OF rec
with il, In iookt1s =. he prosipions 9TH of 1he a or
Etnal section tetght} even II the conrt eonh
caange one aRure for !he oiher. without evidence
un ne y m9,I i. ps1esSf ,5sn ta5 &c
tion tseyeut Its provisions are apparen'1J more
isble to defeat the objects Of the company Ihan
Ordinances Or his End. as before .tated, are
contrarta, md each is to be construed By it, &erms
independent Of all oihes ardin4nce-. But 1t Ii
insisted that the actlon Of the Mirror md Common
portion Of North Clark street, 6 conclusive
r eesRs Rontw wa4s, + sss 1ns B.sTa
n.eessine the Railway Company for the amount
they deemed the railway benefited By the improve
ment. Tho Mayor vetoed the assessment upon The
not authorize the assessment Of The Hallway Com
pnny for the tfucat 1t mould receive from the i'm.
nsoyeSnsn1 70 % oth we1as he MsseF and Com
part Of the ordinance The iact That II appeared 10
BE- 60 By the ordnance with the pas!ef on; md BY
The supposed copy IN the Book Of ordinances: was
powerr, they are not competent q III the faet Of
70 q II s, ssa s. sse.o
would not have had the force Of ind1cial deler-
mrnation. And the city Counsel Mr. Aver, In
man 10 contend thst dc decision Of ths Common
Council vas judicial determination Of the ques-
fton conclusive upon Al courts. The action Of
as The case appeared upon The Records. But the
suggestion that such a dec1sion OF 3ecieIAnva
body, !. conclusive upon the question Of forIcry.
ie % etalthng. that II should be well fortified BY
But il il objected thai he question Of forgery
csnnot be inquired into hecan.e nrises collateral
Is. Colatesally to vhatf Certainly not collateral
" to the a*scf sment, because Its validity depends
upon The ordinance; !; and II The assessment is
based On forced, md not On the genuine ordi-
collateral as de:en.e Of forgery inierpo.ed by =
parry attempted to be charged upona forged con-
is9c, Of any other description, and no more 60;
Of Public Norke 10 call witnesses and examine tns
question. The remedy suggested Il that The Com
mon Council resolve t1telf into Court OF Inquiry
made rome yea5s 1go. THE would cerfafnly he a
remarkable and, I npprehend, IN entirely novel,
'bs ~ 10 20 9S
Tor the injured property holder. Suppse the Com.
mon Council refuse 10 organize tt+ef into conr1
by anoiher council II years before. who il 10 com
pei them 10 organize and make the tnre4tisafldns
But II If eaid that this court has jurisdiction.
| enter on this examination a. The Bard oi fnbllc
| Works. We are also reminded that this Il nisi
pau& court and that our opinions are not re :ored
humble, In vew of III preaz. nil p1is5
nut ipasmnch as, she Legislature bat
secu 1T to require the city Of Chicago to apply to
ment, before fhey Ell properly ioF special a..
e.ssmentE, ard has authorized properly holders
whore property il asseesed to ale objections and
thai rendering judEment against The properly was
not mere matter Of form but that 1t vas The duty
Of the court to hear objections and the evidence
and refuse Judgment when The objections went q
the substantial moifs Of the caee. Fortunately
there II a higher couEt who VIII cheeEfnty eorree1
there eau be no donbt that the ordinance as parsed
required the raway company to be astes sed for hi
k1Dd oI IMPROVEMENT eoutrIuplRtnd tn this case
The Vice President Mr. Turner, teslifes that Al
I dc1Han Carpenter was the person upon whom til
company relied IN obtsinine the ordinance. INT
Alderman Carpenter tcsilaet that be was On th
committee that ind charge Of It; that he was pre-.
cnt when II passed and thatft passed, as appear
without the pas'e1.
1t je halr to presume that he informed them O
the tacts and tha: the COMPANY knew the substauca
Of the ordinance passed 1he tact that Iii. kn5s
1nan furnished them w7th certified copT o J'ht
| forged ordinance does not change th fpresumptlon
But the ob'cc ion now made ta'see moseimpor
| liant question - the citizens. involving, pTo$pec
lively the payment ot millions Of dollar1 for benc
te aectuiue TO OTHERS The case stated in the n
! cumcur OF the attorney Of the tAilway Company
snd embraced in the record Of this illustrate.
| the principles upon which this ordinance is based
as they contend j: wae and should be. The rscort
ehowe that the assessment waE made, End thie rail
| way company was Assessed for benefits {the amoun
ie immaterial} The company apply to the Msyor
| and be vetoes The Assessment. and the Common
Council sustain The veto. deciding that the railwa,
| company w4s not HsLle 10 II assessed. Ths
board Of 1'uhhc works make 4 new a.
scesmcnt, onittine 10 a.se.s the company
| sJ~.. ,th3nh Sha no~rd rf Bph{t,