City of Chicago v. McKechney
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit, for work, labor, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Freeman
It is the principal'contention of counsel for the appellant that the supplemental contracts of May 17, 1897, and October 8, 1898, are invalid because they were made without any new advertisement for bids and reletting the work to the lowest bidder in accordance with the provisions of Section 30, Art. IX of Chap. 24, E. S., being the act to provide for incorporation of cities and villages.
As to the validity of the original contract of October 19, 1895, under which the work began, no question arises in this case. The decision, moreover, in City of Chicago v. Duffy, 179 Ill. 447, sustaining a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- City of Chicago v. SextonIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
- City of Elgin v. JoslynIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- County of Cook v. HarmsIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Connett v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Blanding v. City of Las VegasNevada Supreme Court · 1929
- Busch v. Joint Drainage District No. 49-79Supreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Bent Bros., Inc. v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Smith v. Sanitary DistrictAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
- City of Chicago v. MurdochAppellate Court of Illinois · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.