The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1885-02-21
THE COURTS.
Appellate Court.

county. Three of these are quite interest
ing locally and otherwise important. we
therefore append a brief statement OF the
cases respectively and the points decided;
The Commissioners Of High"dyS 81 ne
1'o,cn Of Deer Pork v. John OSuH'ooh-
Dec. I, 1876, the commissioners Issued to
Fyfre s. Hetherington an order for 81 ooo
payable on or before July 20, 1873, which
was sold to OSullivan, the order having
been issued for work done on culyert lea
ding to the bridge across the Illinois river
O'Sulliyan, in the court below, got n judg-
ment. The question presented was; can
the commissioners enter into any contract
having the effect to create an Indebtedness
against the township to be paid at future
time out of funds derived from taxes In
subsequent years? The court cites C0m-
n,jssioners v. Mcneil, 80 Ill, 5S7, and Braun
'. 7opn of Peoria, SO Ill. II, &c, which ca
ses are conclusive against such power, and
the court decides that the plaintiff cannot
recover.
Ctr of La Sale V. N. d II. Il. Co.-The
Zinc Company bought the coal under GER
tain lands and lots in La Sale city, and in
order to mine the coal 1t was necessary to
make certain entries and passage ways from
lot to lot and block TO block under the
streets OF the city to connect the cool with
the shaft. The company claim the mining
of the coal under the streets would be no
interference with the streets, and unless
that right is yielded them the coal under
the lots Is lost to them But the city claims
ownership of the coal under the streets,
with power to sell IT, and threatened to pre-
vent the Zinc Company mining under the
streets.
The city demurred TO the bill. The de-
murrer was Overruled and decree entered
giving the Zinc Co. the right to mine and
remove the coal from underneath the
streets. doing no injury to the surface, and
enjoinlng the city from in any way inter
ferlng with the Zinc company in so doing.
The city appealed. The simple question
presented was, whether the appellee has
the right, as the owner of coal shaft loca.
ted outside the city as originally plated
and the owner OF coal underlying certain
lots ann blocks In the city, without the con-
sent of the city authorities, to enter into,
mine and remove the veins of coal under.
lying the streets and alleys of the city for
the purpose Of connecting the shaft with
the coal owned by complainant under such
lots and blocks" The right to mine under
the street Is claimed by the company as ex
isting by virtue OF having bought the land
from the adjoining owners. The streets and
alleys having been dedicated to the public
use, the city acting as trustee for the them
as we'll as the public, said lot owners have
an equitable title In and to the soil of the
streets a. resulting trust, subject to the
public use. and lot owners have the abso.
Lutte dominion over the soil Of the streets
subject 70 the public use. Arguing against
this claim the court cites Canal Trustees v.
Haven. II Ill. 554; Hunter v. Aiddleton, Is
III. 50; and CITY Of Chicago v. Rumsey, 81
III. $40, &C., and conclude that the "bound-
aries Of lots and blocks are limited to the
description IN the plat, and that the lots
and blocks as thus described constituted
the entire interest In the land plated and
purchased by individuals from the canal
commissioners, and that purchasers had no
special interest In the streets, either legal
or equitable" The sale Of coal to the com.
psny carried with II the right to 60 on and
mine It, but II did not have the effect of
authorizing an entry into the lands of 9th
era, either upon or below the surface. The
city Ii the owner In fec and In possession
Of the streets with power to prevent en-
crachments upon them by individuals, and
the court say 1--WE find no warrant in law
limiting the exercise Of this power to the
surface Of the ground" The decree below
Is reversed and the cause remanded with
directions to sustain the demurrer of the
city and dismiss the bill SO far as the relief
asked is based upon the allegations &c
which the demurrer il 30 sustained.
H.S. Gilbert d Co. v. Patrick McGinntss
In Feb. 1881 McGinniss contracted with
Gilbert j. Co. for the sale of 1000 bushels
of corn at 80 cents bushel for delivery II
August and September 1881, to be paid for
appellant says, on delivery, It being agreed
that appellee could have all tho money ad
vances on 1t he wanted. McGinniss asked
for an advance, for which he was asked {,
give his note. This he refused to do ant
the advance he asked was denied. McGin
Miss then said they could not have his COR
and sold 1t to another party at less pric,
and got an advance on 1t. Corn in Septem
Der was worth 6Gc. Gilbert & Co. sued 70
enforcement OF the contract Defendan
claimed that the plaintiff had failed t
keep his end of the contract by refusing I
grant an advance of money without havin
note for 1t, and thereby voided the Who'll
contract. The circuit court 20 held, an,