Case Name: Charles McDonnell v. The City of Chicago
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1871-09
Citations: 60 Ill. 350
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles McDonnell v. The City of Chicago.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
Charles McDonnell v. The City of Chicago.
Special assessments — in the city of Ohicago — of giving the Board of Public Works a discretion. An ordinance ordered to be constructed, on a certain street, curb walls, and to be rebuilt and repaired “ where the same are not now in a good aud sound condition,” “said work to be done under the superintendency of the Board of Public Works, conformably to the drawings prepared byr said IJoardJHeld, the ordinance was void, because it undertook to vest in the Board of Public Works a discretion which should have been exercised by the common council alone.
Appeal, from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.
This was an application in the court below for a judgment upon a special assessment warrant, under an ordinance in the city of Chicago. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the city, from which the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Spafford, McDaid & AYilso.N, for the appellant.
Mr. M. F. Tuley, Corporation Counsel, for the appellee.

Opinion:
«Per Curiam :
The first section of the ordinance on which the assessment was based in this case, is as follows:
"That curb walls be and are hereby ordered constructed on Market street, from the north curb line of Randolph street to the south curb line of Lake street, and rebuilt and repaired in said portion of Market street, where the same are not now in a good and sound condition, and that said Market street, from the north line of Randolph street to the south line of Lake street, be and is hereby ordered filled and paved with wooden blocks. Said work to be done under the superintendency of the Board of Public AYorks, conformably to the drawings prepared by said Board, and hereto annexed."
An ordinance similar to this was held, in Foss v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 354, to be void. So this must fall, for the same reasons given in that case. It is not distinguishable.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.