The Cairo daily bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1870-1872, 1871-06-21

| Improvement or proposed improvement
The same section imposes upon the Board
of Public Works the duty of examining
the locality whore the proposed Improve,
ment is 10 be made, as we'll as Ali tIe lots
or parts of lots that will be specially bene-
fitted thereby.
Admitting these assessments TO have
been illegal, unconstitutional and void.
because the making of tho assessments
was confined to the particular property
fronting upon the street which might be
specially benefited, IL was not extended 10
all the property which might be SO bene-
lifted. After having paid them, under the
circumstances in this case Is the appeal
liant entitled to recover the money back on
the ground Of the payment having been a
compulsory and not a voluntary one The
precept which was In the hands of the Of
ticer at the time these assessments were
paid, did not authorize HIM to levy upon
the goods and chat;les of the appellant,
but directed him merely to make sale Of
the lots to satisfy the assessments. In
Bradford VI the city Of Chicago, rs Ill. All,
ii aas held that the payment of an assess
ment made to collector Of taxes, whilst
having in his hands a warrant to levy and
collect the amount of the assessment, of
goods and chattles Of the owner, might be
considered compulsory, and made under
such circumstances as would authorize the
party paying the money TO recover back
the same, IL the assessment was illegally
made.
But 1t was decided in Slower v.
Mitchell, As ILL.,, 2l3, that a levy of AN
execution upon ones land did not make a
case Of such duress or compulsion that n
payment made to prevent the sale of the
land under the execution could be recov-
cred back as compulsory payment. 1t
was held to be a voluntary payment and
not one made under duress, and it is there
said, at is insisted that the levy of the
execution on Stover's land was the exer-
else of such compulsion as to interfere
with Stovers freedom of action. No case
| is cited going to this extent, and We ven.
turc to say none can be found. In order
to render such Il payment compulsory, such
pressure must be brought to bear upon
the person paying as to interfere in some
way with the free enjoyment of his right
of person or property" citing Bradford v.
the City of Chicago, supra. and Elston v.
City OF Chicago, 40 Ills, Ola.
There was here no interference with the
plaintiff fee enjoyment of his property,
and there would not have been, by
making the sale of it under the pre-
] Ctpl. DuCH SAFE NOulu HOt nave us
turbed his possession of the property
he would then have had two years 10 re-
deem from the sale, and IL at the end of
that time the purchaser had obtained his
= tax deed and brought his action of eject
5 ment for the recovery Of the possession,
: the illegality oe the assessments could have
t been shown In defense and the recovery
= Of the possession defeated. Or had the
!. plaintiff desired to remove any cloud which
!. might be brought upon his title by such a
t. sale, he could have had his remedy for
1T that purpose.
ID 1t is very unlike the case of the pay
ID ment of money made TO avoid the seizure
lie OF goods, or to gain re possession Of them,
10 where there may be q pressing necessity
s. for their immediate use, and being of u
ID movable and perishable character, any
Y. legal remedy might be inadequate for full
protection. The reasons upon which it /,
held that where party is compelled by
duress OF his person or goods to pay money
for which he is not liable, the payment i.
l. not voluntary but compulsory, and that
he may rescue himself from such
duress by payment of the money anC
afterwards on proof Of the fact recove
it back, do not apply to the case of rea
Y. estate threatened with such action as il
ment of these assessments was not mad
n under such circumstances of constraint an,
IL compulsion as to except it from the oper
alton of the legal principle, tba
al if a party with full knowledg
of all the facts of the case, voluntaril,
pays money in satisfaction o
n discharge of demand unjustly made OF
10 him, he can not afterwards recover bacl
n the money
J. AS 10 the third point, the reason doe
d not appear why the collection of the othel
j. assessments WAS abandoned. Ifthey were
illegal and void as claimed, we may pre-
D, sumo it to have been because they were no
l. paid voluntarily, and the city could no
% enforce the collection.
q. But the improvement was not aban
E. doned; it was completed, and the none,
m paid by the plaintiff was not retained b,
N the city, but it was applied towards tn
Is expense Of the improvement.
h The plaintiff has but paid the amour
e. of the special benefit which his propert,
n derived from the improvement.
n 1t was equitable that he should do so
lie the circumstance that others failed t,
Is make payments for their special benefit.
?, does not vary the case. 1t does not ap
r pear to Us, to be contrary to equity anC
,s good concience for the city to retair
&c this money, and applyit in relief of thu
Is general property owners from the pay
10 ment for special benefit conferred upor
Is the plaintiff alone.
IF AS to the consideration for the pay
TT ment having wholly failed, the improve
IN ment having been made it is to be con
e. sidered that the plaintiff has received
id iull equivalent or compensation for tn
s. money paid, in the enhanced value whicl
6. his property has derived from the i'm
IF provement. Canal Trustees, et. al, .,
>. the city of Chicago, II, III. 4O3, Sharp q,
.r Spcir 4, Hill 49,
Or In Bradford Us. the City of Chicago
10 supra; the cases Of the Bank OF New
At Orleans Us. the city of New Orleans, II
s, Louisiana, X. 42l the city of Lousvill,
At ps. Zanone, Met. (Ky.) l5l; and Wake
ID ps. city Of st. Louis, were cited, which de
le eide that where an illegal special assess
is ment for special benefits has been volunts
is rily paid it is not recoverable back, on tn
Dr. ground that consideration was receive
te for the money paid, in the special benef
is conferred by the improvement, and one :
q benefited was not in good conscience en-
10 titled to recover back again the none
paid.
l. The case Of Bradford VS.. the city G
Chicago, supra, is distinguished from tn
" present one, not only by the fact thl
there the collector had in his bands a wal