Higgins v. City of Chicago
Illinois Supreme Court
The application, in this case, was as follows: “ Respectfully respresents unto your honors, Yan H. Higgins, of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, that he was, on the fifteenth day of October, A, D. 1855, together with Bolton F. Strother, who has since sold all his interest to Yan H. Higgins, seized in fee, and that he was, long before, and ever since has continued to be, the owner, in fee simple, either in his own right or in connection with said…
Read the full summary
The application, in this case, was as follows: “ Respectfully respresents unto your honors, Yan H. Higgins, of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, that he was, on the fifteenth day of October, A, D. 1855, together with Bolton F. Strother, who has since sold all his interest to Yan H. Higgins, seized in fee, and that he was, long before, and ever since has continued to be, the owner, in fee simple, either in his own right or in connection with said Strother, of the following described premises, to wit: the west half of the east half of lot number fotu’ (4), in block…
1Opinion of the CourtScates, C. J.
The facts admitted by the respondent entitles the relator to a peremptory writ of mandamus, for the payment of the balance of damages awarded him, after deduction of the benefits.
Where a street has been ordered to be opened or extended, commissioners for the assessment of damages have been appointed, have made and reported an assessment, which has been accepted and confirmed; a warrant issued for the collection of the amounts assessed for payment of such damages, and such street ordered to be opened; the parties entitled to such damages for property taken, etc., are entitled to have and…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Damp v. Town of DaneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Chambers v. Cincinnati & Georgia RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- Harrison v. State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Commissioners of Highways v. Commissioners of East Lake Fork Special Drainage DistrictIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.