The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1884-11-22
THE COURTS.
The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court.
A list OF sixty two decisions in cases sub,
nitted at the September term was filed by
the Supreme Court on Monday. Two only
we're Of importance TO this county.
THE OTTAWA BRIDGE.
Abstract of opinion in The People, OK rel.
Higlpay Commissioners Of he To,on Of Otta,ca,
'. The Board Of Supervisors Of In Safe Conn
", Justice T. Lyle Dickey writing the
opinion:
In the act In relation to township organiza-
ton, approved Feb. II, 1851, claws of 1851,
.. 35) it is provided that the several towns in
the state shall have superintendent Of high
ways and bridges therein. The charter Of
city Of Ottawa, enacted Feb. 10, 1853, confers
upon the city, among other things, the power
to establish and keep in repair bridges with
in its limits, and to- levy and collect certain
taxes for that purpose. Both these statutes
being in force, the town Of Ottawa levied a
tax to construct bridge across Fox river,
within the limits Of the city of Ottawa, and
when the case was taken to the Supreme
Court (To,ru Of Ottaro V. Walker, 81 Ill. 605)
II was held that the town had no lawful pow
er to levy or collect tax for that purpose,
upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the
city was exclusive. The same principle was
again promulgated in the the case Of The
To,cn Of Lancaster v. Bdumgarfen, al Ill. 260.
The principle or rule established in these two
cases Is that the power and jurisdiction Of
highway commissioners In relation to bridges
did not extend to any part Of the territory Of
their town embraced within the corporate
limits of a city having power to establish and
maintain bridges. Thus the law stood until
1879. II is contended that the policy Of con-
Anng the powers to the commissioners OF
highways within the territorial limits of that
part of the territory Of their towns not en-
braccd within the bounds OF any incorporated
city, town or village, was there abandoned
Section 1906, Road and Bridge Act, Laws Of
1879, p. 2l0, declares "brdgc over streams
which divide towns aud bridges on
roads on . town lines shall be built"
&c, provided, that for the building and
maintaining Of bridges over streams near
town lines IN which both are interest.
ed, the expense of building and maintaining
any such bridges shall be borne equally by
both towns While the language
of the statute law on this subject has been
changed, it seems apparent upon close obser-
yation that the law itself has not been
changed Mt all in its substance or meaning
While section l0G does expressly declare that
bridges over streams dividing towns shall be
built, &c, still by the provisions of the sue.
ceeding sections, which provide, first, for
Joint contracts to be entered into by the com.
missioners Of adjoining towns, and, second,
that If the commissioners of either of such
towns after notice shall neglect to build when
any contract has been made, the commissions
ers giving the notice may build aud repair the
same and recover one-half of the expense,
SC, it is apparent that the legal liability rests
or any town under the act, except in cases
where the town has chosen to assume such
liability by contract; and so while the statute
OF 1883 contains the same express declaration
that such a bridge shall be town charge,
still other sections show there is no legal liza
bility upon such towns unless assumed by
such towns. Now, as the law stood when the
case of Ottdiod v. Walker was decided, it was
substantially the same in the respect of max
ing such bridges IA charge upon the adjoining
towns as 1t is now. In Rutland V. Dayton, 60
H. 5S, ii was laid down by this court that
while no town was legally liable (uside from
It's own action to build or assist in building a
bridge across a stream dividing It from another
town, still such liability might be assumed
by the consent Of such town, and such con
sent might be shown by acts of the town,
such rs laying out roads leading to the bridge
or raising money to pay in part for such re.
pairs. The law is now, AS II WAS then, that
no town is legally liable by mere force Of the
statute TO aid In the construction or repair of
bridge across q stream constituting part Of
lie boundary, but any town may voluntarily
assume such liability by contract expressed
or implied. We do not find any change In the
road law rendering the decision in the case of
Oifatcd v. Walker inapplicable to this case
The principle laid down In that case is that
general words Of the road law giving road
commissioners powers over bridges their re.
spective towns are not to apply to q bridge
within the limits Of an incorporated city; that
the statute IS to powers OF road commission
srs is general and that as TO powers OF cities is
special; and that the special laws relating to
cities are not to be affected by the general
statutes as To town Affairs. II this be so,
the town Of Ottawa having no power to col.
isct tax 10 build bridge within city, can
NOT require the county 10 contribute ons-half
Il The expsnss Of such work.