City of Chicago v. Norton Milling Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit, on a contract in writing. Appeal from the Qircuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1900.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman
Appellant insists that no recovery could properly be had by appellee in this declaration, because not only was the contract of appellee with appellant, but the contracts of the city with Biter & Conley and with the Fitzsimmons & Connell Company were each invalid, not being authorized by proper proceedings of the city council or by proper advertisement and award. For the purposes of this case at this j uncture, we do not regard it as of vital importance whether either or all of the aforesaid contracts were or was valid and binding at its or their inception. The erection of a new, wider, and…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hill v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Robbins v. Chicago CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Seifert v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Ashley v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Nevins v. City of PeoriaIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. City of Calumet CityIllinois Supreme Court · 1945
- Giaconi v. City of AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Krug v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1939