, 1877-02-10
Town or City Water.Works. Being q
Bing1e Improvement, Only Re.
quire Single Ordinance.
Ghe Liability OF Administrators In Car-
rylng Out Contracts Made
by tho Deceased
Suits to Recover Further Asaessments
from tho Republic Fire
Stockholders.
Voluntary Bankruptcy Of Large Whole
sale Boot and Shoe Hon.e.
Eredericka Freiberg Wants Sd, 900 to
Heal Her Blighted Affections.

SUPREME COURT.
BISHOP VS.. NELSON Er Al~
Tho following Is tho opinion in the case Of 4
Chaplin j. Bishop IS. Iforntlo Nelson ct al.. n1-
pca!cd from the Superior Court OF Cook |
County:
The Judgment In this casc Il reversed on the an.
hoty Of nSas"nd 4a w. G,esa Ct M sstdea ts ,1r. H.
:outd not ettpnlatc TO- confer judicial fune!ion3
apon an Individual and clothe hin, with iudteia!
being the arbitrator mutually choscn, hut It was an
attempt 10 cunfcr upon him the power Of aludEc
he eoast ost III dcsson BY eatesns tic
JUDGMENT he Ind reached, and not It's own Jug
There IL no authority for this proceeding. and
nAndcIi. ,.
II. II. Thomas for appellant and ". D. Gibbs
md Josiah Grant for appcllccs.
MosH1En vs. MORTON.
This was Nh appeal from tho dccrco Of the
Circuit Court Of Henry County. A bill Of fore
closure wns fled by tho appellant, Timothy
Noshlcr, to forcclose mortgage given upon II
farm In Henry County. Tho defense lntcsposcd
was usury In the notc, which the mortgage was
given to assure. Various questions were ralsel
by tho parties as to tic foreclosure In tho bill fl
tho Court below, which wcre not involved in the
appeal. Tie Court below held tho defense of
usury sustained by the evidence, aud made II
decree accordingly, tho result Of which
was, under The statute, TO forfeit all interest
upon the original debt, which lad been running
lor nearly twenty years, aud, us tho mortgage
had been in possession, the amount Of Income
from thu rents Vas chargeable Upon the original
debt. The supromo Court overrulcd tho de-
fcnsc Of usury and reversed the decree Of the
Circuit Court, holding that tho appellant was
tot& h 4nlt ts+f* tt,.
tercst, dctl,,cting only tho amount received
from tho Income Of tho farm by The appellant.
The Supreme Court further holds that the ov-
dencu offered 10 establish the usury was In
sufficient for that purpose. Miller & Fru9t for
appellant, and IL. Bigclow and c. s. Wilson for
VILLAGE or HYDE Park ys. THE SOUTH PARK
COMMISSIONERS.
The following Is tho decision In this case:
The only question presented By th!a record y
lssessmente. This question i settled. by tho
Bouth Park Commisa!oness Tho People cx rel.
s s wheo s%st held h
Judgment IL Affirmed.
ruE rEorLs X nHl- MILLER vE. r. l.. suEn-
MAN Rr AL
This was another case OF au attempt to avoid
paying special assessment for the purpose Of
laying wntcr-naIns III the Village OF Hyde Park.
On tho trial before Judge WALLACE, the Court
hcld that the nsscssnlcnt was void bcraltse, be-
~ GNs s .ts ,na ~ .t.aI s.,s os,S. SiI. sst
fhc Supreme Court holds that q, water
syst,m in q city Or village "a but
v,c vi,s t,rIsnor' Ths "a nvy1ens iIat ~ Wrrt
lcF ". Tho City of Chicago, IL Illinois, pAgH
14l, where Il held that the making Of d new
A.iey ny tau "tacn'us ~ aM ON ote ~ 1' Ivy
5aaa9 ~ um WY !t NV , nhu Yu'
press authority conferred upon clttea and vii
iases 70 eFy apce'al assessnSnt M for construct,
~ ~ orainnn"n tnat p1' e oS. mn ircgt hn,. ,ho
pipes shu1l be la,, whether ont On toy Of tno earth
or unuer tne rasln, .. noW agcp3 IL SaSs tnc on-
rtyS yp['i'pa /. e a v
r e Tea.n tn ts
o o1 vcr o ,rhoe u S Siar n Gn r.
toHpsl ttaf tss'taet The Gonrt :,
natafo and enataelef ol taS protested Wofk 70
eatM thai there arc several iHprovssnents; that
~. iayinG ot Wntc3aans nn = IN gMy or .! EItiage.
must "a me;essty yy.e 10 o. 81 Pfastal tl t,y @
contrary apItats .n % % ..'s aasc u tao araanee
ansa' @ aaa mnem 'ae oojcel'on ~ VA taken, ptoot
;,,a,pr,n, %an "ns.Gu 'aI. W. III tast nut nt nn1
" nR:ssys''cats + !l.s Weckiss s.:s were e:
With With sasA Htl'sr; t'at in ,lis sa.e however, tlu
% wItsr wanted n tut d1est, s M ana other PURPOSES
nGnt HE nauhe c,tsult ~ the cnt!te s}stcu,. a!lll
INIT were u ollier"lst, tho eystctn woaiu us
yaaus!css. ~ llis oplnio., q NC e9preme
tonrt, would eo we vctieet ioily 10 nhaeftaKo
70 conhtluet system ot "atcfe"ofKs uhac.
separate ordinance Tor every street and
SnTs s1Ieet Hhcfo malhs arc 70 w
!a1u; INC law Ias feAuifcu no tuctl
useless thing, hor ran any decision III tho s'l'
pfetlio court .: lonnd to wnrfst such an IN
ulfeet nloHe OF making hh Improvement, not
wltnstanalns IL may extend over more than one
tue notlco u Tue toltntY Collector Was a.
lacked because !le haa made separate upplIca
ton 70 eell the lung tor this special assessment
,nnt thG nupfeine court io!tls that u wa - IN
discretion VI tho Conniy collector to embrace
tnis special ass:sstncnt U.s., II an spiratton t'y y
~! or Will tlat Of ias General taxes' On t!ls
!ast polht Judge Mallaso u sustained. III.
"oF1H: the ,sTstem OF watcr.wurii
established hy liIuo i'arH has been acclarcl
talMt Inc Court also decides that II u prole
Tor HYdo fark to nlake special assessments lol