The Cairo daily bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1870-1872, 1871-06-18
THE STREET FILLING CASE.

WALTER FALLS VS.. THE CITY OF CAIRO.
In the BULLETIN Of yesterday we pub
lished the opinion in full of the supreme
court of the state in the case of Walter
Falls VS.. the city Of Cairo. The case was
submitted for decision at the last January
term of the supreme court, at Springfield
and the opinion of tho court, delivered by
judge Sheldon, was filed week or two
ago.
Falls, in the spring Of 1868, paid certain
special assessments for street filing,
amounting 70 81 ,6o2.56 upon certain lots
Of his fronting upon Washington avenue
and Poplar street. In the spring Of 1870,
he brought suit in our circuit court 10 re.
cover back the money thus paid, basing
right to recover on four certain grounds,
set out in full in the opinion. Judge Ba-
ker, at the following September term, 1870
Of the court, decided that Falls was not
entitled to recover back the: money, and
gave judgment in favor of the city. From
this judgment, Falls appealed to the SUI
preme court where the decision Of the
circuit court, it now appears, was affirmed.
Aside from the amount of money in
volved, the case has been regarded as one
of considerable importance, inasmuch as
II represents large number of other cases
or claims standing substantially in the
same situation.
Many persons who paid their assess
"a 60 bat . 1. fNr a. H.,
to pay interest on the Fox, Howard Il Co.
bonds, and to be bound TO pay any part Of
the principal Of the same when they fall
due.
The failure to collect large number of
these assessments, in the first place, has
led to much litigation, and has really been
the ground or cause Of complaint that has
been made. 1t is hardly worth while now
to say that ell the difficulty, trouble and
complaint might have been avoided. No
one will hardly undertake to say how,
when, or ~here, II might have been
avoided, save, that If the city had not un-
dertaken TO I'LL the streets, nothing Of this
kind would have taken place-a very salts
factory piece of information indeed.
II would seem that the decision settles
most, If not all, the questions growing out
of the failure TO collect that assessment,
especially those questions touching the
liabilities of the city TO refund the moneys
received from the persons who paid their
Assessments.
The court holds that the payment by
Falls after judgment against his lots, and
while precept was in the hands of the
officer authorizing him to sell the lots
only, and not his personal property, was n
voluntary and not compulsory payment
was a payment made with full knowl-
edge Of ali the facts, and could not be re-
cieved back, although the assessment may
have been illegal--,hat if the proceed
ings were illegal, no matter if they were
carried forward TO a sale the lots, the
owners title thereto was not thereby en-
dangered. After adverting to the rules
of law governing the payment of money
for the relief Of ones person or goods, and
chewing that thoy d" not apply to cases
Of real estate situated AS these lots were,
the court goes on to say " But the i'm
provement was not abandoned; it was
completed, and the money paid by the
plaintiff was not retained by the city, but
was applied towards the expense of the
improvement
The plaintiff has but paid the amount
Of the special benefit which his property
desired from the improvement"
This language Of the Court, together
with the remainder Of the opinion imme-
distely following the language quoted
seems not only applicable to the particular
case before the Court, but also applicable
to all the other cases where assessments
were paid. The opinion will no doubt
receive q careful examination from those
persons who are interested in the questions
it decides and discusses. Its publication
in the BULLETIN lays it in convenient
shape before such persons for perusa and
reference.