
    Henry H. Honore v. City of Chicago.
    
    1. Special assessment—notice of, necessary. On an application for judgment in favor of the city of Chicago, by the city collector, against lands to enforce collection of a special assessment made for the purpose of widening a street, no competent .p'rouf of The. notice hf malying the assessment appeared in the proceedings put in evidence, nor was there any extrinsic proof of such fact: Held, that the want of such proof was fatal to the judgment on appeal, and that the city collector,' under the constitution of 1870, had no authority to apply for judgment.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph -E.. Gary, .Judge., presiding. . ......
    : - Mr.-Edward Roby, for the appellants. .
    Mr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellee.
    
      
      The cases of Stampofski v. Chicago, and Stearns v. Same, are considered in the same opinion.
    
   Per Curiam :

These cases arise out of the same proceeding, which was an application to the Superior Court, at its March term, 1871, by the collector of the city "of Chicago, for judgment upon a special assessment warrant, in the matter of widening Wabash Avenue, to the width of 100 feet, from Douglas Place to Egan Avenue.

The entire record of the proceedings was put in evidence, from which it appears that there was no competent proof of the notice of making the assessment, nor any proof dehors that record. This is fatal to the judgment under the objection made to the application. Rich v. Chicago, 59 Ill. 286. The collector was unauthorized to apply for judgment. Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86.

The judgments will be reversed and the causes remanded.

Judgments reversed.  