Case Name: Francis C. Farwell, Appellant, vs. The City of Chicago, Appellee
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1910-10-28
Citations: 247 Ill. 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis C. Farwell, Appellant, vs. The City of Chicago, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 235–237

Head Matter:
Francis C. Farwell, Appellant, vs. The City of Chicago, Appellee.
Opinion filed October 28, 1910
Rehearing denied Dec. 9, 1910.
1. Plats—fee of Fifth avenue, in School Section addition to Chicago, is in abutting owners. The plat of School Section addition to Chicago was a common, law plat, and the fee of Fifth avenue, in such addition, is therefore in the abutting owners and not in the city.
2. Sams—fee of Congress street, in School Section addition to Chicago, is in abutting owners. By reason of the failure of the owner of the land to properly acknowledge the plat by which Congress street, in School Section addition to Chicago, was dedicated, the title to said street remained in such owner, and when he conveyed lots abutting upon Congress street he conveyed title to his ^grantees to the center of the street.
3. The principles involved in this case are discussed in the opinions rendered in Sears v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 204,) and in Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 192.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Julian W. Mack, Judge, presiding.
This was one of eight bills in chancery severally filed in the circuit court of Cook county by property owners in the city of Chicago whose property abuts upon the public streets of said city, against the city of Chicago, to enjoin the city from enforcing, as against their respective properties, the provisions of an ordinance passed by the common council of the city of Chicago on February 5, 1906, which ordinance provides that no person shall use any space underneath the surface of any street or other public grounds in the city of Chicago, or construct or maintain any structure thereunder, without first obtaining a permit so to do from the commissioner of public works in said city. The complainant Farwell is the owner of the northwest corner of Fifth avenue and Congress street, which has a frontage of eighty feet on Fifth avenue and one hundred feet on Congress street, and has located thereon an eight-story building of brick and mill construction. The complainant the Board of Trustees of Beloit College owns a frontage of fifty feet on Fifth avenue, upon which it has erected an eight-story building. The premises of the complainants are situated in the original plat of School Section addition to Chicago. That plat is a part of section 16, township 39, north, range 14, east of the third principal meridian, which was granted by the United States to the State of Illinois for'the use of the inhabitants of the township in which the same is situated, for the use of schools. The plat of School Section addition to Chicago contains no certificate, signature or endorsement by said commissioner. Fifth avenue was one of the original streets in School Section addition to Chicago. Congress street was opened in 1851 by plat made by Samuel Russell, which was recorded’ in September, 1852, and which plat was acknowledged by Russell before the county clerk of Middlesex county, Con necticut, who was not authorized by statute to take acknowledgments of plats. The trial court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and Farwell has appealed.
Wilson, Moors & McIlvainb, for appellant.
Edward J. Brundagl, Corporation Counsel, and William D. Bargs, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
It was held by this court in Sanitary District v. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne and Chicago Railway Co. 216 Ill. 575, that the plat of School Section addition to Chicago was a common law plat. Under the doctrine announced in the case of Sears v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 204,) the fee to Eifth avenue is in appellant, and the court should have enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance against this frontage. The plat of Congress street was not properly acknowledged, and the title to that street remained in Russell, and when he conveyed he conveyed to the center of the street. The complainant, Farwell, was therefore the owner to the center of Congress street adjoining his property, and the city should have been enjoined as to the enforcement of the said ordinance as to the Congress'street frontage.
The principles involved in this case are fully discussed in the opinions filed in the cases of Sears v. City of Chicago, supra, and Tacoma Safety Deposit Co. v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 192.)
The decree of the circuit court will be reversed and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.