
    City of Chicago v. Henry Habar et al
    
    1. Special assessments in Chicago—description of property in the ordinance—whether sufficient. Upon the application of the collector of the city of Chicago for judgment upon a special assessment warrant, it was objected that the ordinance condemning the land did not contain a sufficient general description, of the property. The land was described as “ lot 8 and the north ten feet of lot 9 in block 93 of Elston’s addition to Chicago, in accordance with the plan hereto annexed.” The north line of lot 9 did not run due east and west, but in such a manner as to form an obtuse angle at its center, and the portion of lot 9 sought to be condemned, as shown by the plan attached to the ordinance, was indicated by running a line parallel with the north line of the lot, and at a distance of ten feet from it. The description in the ordinance was held sufficient.
    2. Same—power of the collector to apply for judgment. But a recovery could not be had for the reason that the authority of the collector to apply for judgment had been abrogated by the constitution of 1870.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County • the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.
    This was an application by the collector of the city of Chicago for judgment upon a special assessment warrant, the assessment being for extending or opening West Oak Street from Larrabee to Crosby Street, and the ordinance describing the land condemned as “ Lot 8 and the north 10 feet of lot 9 in block 93 of Elston’s addition to Chicago, in accordance with the plan hereto annexed.” It appeared that the north line of lot -9 did not run due east and west, but in a north-east direction half the distance of the north line, and then in a southeast direction to the east line, thus forming at the center of the north line an obtuse angle. The portion of lot 9 sought to be condemned was represented on the plan accompanying the ordinance by drawing a line the whole length of the lot ten feet from the north line, and parallel with it. It was objected as a defense to a recovery .of a judgment for the assessment against lot 9 that the ordinance did not contain a sufficient general description of the property, the objector contending that the portion to be condemned as represented by the plan did not indicate the part of the lot embraced in the description, “ the north ten feet of lot 9.”
    The court rendered judgment in favor of the objector, from which the city appeals.
    Mr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellant.
   Per Curiam:

We think the ordinance contained a sufficient general description of the land sought to be condemned. But as the city was not entitled to judgment upon an application made by the collector of Chicago, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  