From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farrell v. West Chicago Park Commissioners

U.S.
Apr 29, 1901
181 U.S. 404 (1901)

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 201.

Argued March 18, 19, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901.

French v. Barber Asphalt Co. ante, 324, and Wight v. Davidson ante, 371, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George W. Wilbur for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Robert A. Childs for defendants in error. Mr. Charles Hudson was on his brief.


This case originated in proceedings to create and improve an avenue or thoroughfare known as Douglas boulevard, in the town of West Chicago.

The full history of those proceedings, contained in the statement of facts made by this court in the case of Lombard and others v. The West Chicago Park Commissioners, recently decided, renders it unnecessary to repeat them here. And the legal questions involved were so fully discussed in that case, and in French v. Barber Asphalt Co. and Wight v. Davidson, cognate cases decided at the present term of this court, that we are relieved from their further consideration.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois is

Affirmed.


The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.


Summaries of

Farrell v. West Chicago Park Commissioners

U.S.
Apr 29, 1901
181 U.S. 404 (1901)
Case details for

Farrell v. West Chicago Park Commissioners

Case Details

Full title:FARRELL v . WEST CHICAGO PARK COMMISSIONERS

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 29, 1901

Citations

181 U.S. 404 (1901)

Citing Cases

Schaefer v. Werling

Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U.S. 506, 518, and cases cited. And with that construction the following recently…

POWELL v. CITY OF ADA, OKL

Reilly v. Albany, 112 N.Y. 30, 19 N.E. 508, one of the leading cases supporting the rule contended for by…