HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Records - Incorporation (56) r
i
,
r * .,. ,
k 1 .♦ r , k tr k ',, ,'
r.-:t,ai; ;P t,...4,,,, a .../..4ik.,a►'e.n, ` „ww+w,y' ...,,,r..:w',x tiw..::4'::,4s..�+ u:.:«.i,,.,�..�.4
k. '
r
r
' IN RE INCORPORATION OF VILLAGE OF CAPITOL HEIGHTS 111. 247 ,
('0 h is 242 N.I.l.2d 247 ,
41 Iil.'cl 256 not defeated by city's annexation, pending; .
In RPORATION OF the VILLAGE incorporation referendum, of strip of land •
OF CAPITOL HEIGHTS. which extended city's boundaries to within
The VILLAGE OF CAPITOL HEIGHTS 9ne mile of proposed village. S.H.A. cl:.24,
et al., Appellants, s S 2-3-.i, 2-3-ii 7-3--C�.
The
i ' OF ROCKFORD, ;4 `e lee 4. Municipal corporations 12(8)
fihe c� plJcllc K..w
No. 41197. '
ti�rhere l�etttton for incorporation caf vii- ,
loge met statutory requirements at time of .'
Supreme Court cit` Illinois.
Nov..22, hearing thereon and referendum was order-
`YT
' .>), 11 68.• y
1 ed, but petition was improperly dismissed ,
• before referendum on ground that interven-
ing annexation by nearby city brought city
x .oc.eedin; on petition for incorpora-. .�
tion of viilatie. The Circuit Court of Win-
boundaries within one mile of proposed vii- ►f
1, s-
lag-e, new referendum should;be conducted. ,
nc t)ago County, John S. Ghent, Jr.,,�rJ., di • ]
s-
the petition, and petitioners appeal-
ecl. The Appellate Court for the Second 0- ;:
r -
District, 89 Ill.App.2d 480, 232 N.E.2d 138, .
Vernon'L. Daunt, Rockford, for appel- . , '., c
affirmed, and petitioners appealed by leave. ,,,,
� appealed
.The Supreme Court, Schaefer, J., held that lants. t
where petition met statutory requirements ,
William; E. Collins, Corporation Counsel,
at time of hearing, including requirement
that area may not lie Within one mile of Rockford, and William R. Nash, State's i •;
boundaryof any existing municipality, in- t' tty., Rockford, for appellee. • - ;i'
ri
corporation was not defeated by city's an-
nexationending?• incorporation re feren-
p l SCHAE 'R', Justice.
c urn, cif strip of lapel whichextended city s
boundaries to within one mile of }roposedOn October er 2 , 1966, the circuit court of `
village. ,. . ,, ,
Winnebago County entered its order find-
Reversed and remanded with directions. • ing that a petition seeking incorporation of `I,
the Village of Capitol Heights met all of the • !` •
statutory requirements for incorporation of ,
. Municipal Corporations 12(1) the proposed village, and directing that
Once court determines, after hearing, referendum election be conducted on No-
that statutory requirements for incorpora- ,vember 19, 1 66, in the territory describe
tion of municipality have been satisfied, sub- in the petition.' On November 7, 1966, the:
sequent developments are irrelevant. City of Rockford enacted an c :. i ante an-•
nexing a certain ri Z of lain.:. ;:'tti uous to
2. Municipal Corporations i) •
'
its boundary. >>y ties t�nn xation tlx: •
No proceeding for annexation may be boundaries of 'the eity were extended < z
initiated after petition for incorporation of within less than one mile of the boundaries,
same territory has been filed, unless incor- of the proposed village. The city then filed
poration is defeated. lis objections to the petition for incur:fora-
tion of the village, stating that it did not ` ;
3. Municipal Corporations 412(3) -- ,'I, '
consent to the incorporation. The circuit
' Where petition for incorporation of vii- court sustained the city's objection, and dis-
lage met statutory requirements at time of missed the petition for incor.,..•:-: ,, z of the ♦:f, , i i i ,
hearing, including requirement that area village. The a oellate co:.."t. i. . ;# :+. (>`; • , , .
may not lie within one mile of boundary of 11l.App.2d 4800, 232 N.E.2d ,::4:;.:, :.i'id we al- '' •
_
any existing neinicipality,incorporation was •lowed leave to .: ,,= cal.
i.
t
, {
f
•3#
. r,
7` / T','.!^K'.+!FwnH..r.I1' t 'i/�+,..TM'•:,MI.M?!..M,++wxr,..roar,pr ., ^sr'rr+*4+ewn!rwm'^..rmr w>-.,•+ar n...•,M"^Y'wr./,y,+.r'+' T',,rF,,
-, . t ,
. , .. , .1,1/4,\, N,, 1 t it'' 1 t
fj' \ I\ ..1''''''. '
`` v
,
.
•,
---------'-'-'!---"---"'----'".•-:,--..
•
, 5 t - w+ir+'t'..i:;:c+',r+..+.,.iwy.•,,v:1u'4a4r•+..a.ti..•si..w4.a.rr3��•+.Ji�4+:Vtw.h+w+.fwMw.w.ra+rasnw2,.1r4'::•0.,k'ti+;PwtrMlw.r.,�.wrrir'..w-««''
f:
• b
, � 2� 3 n. 2..12NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
• The petition for incorporation of the vil- is controlling, rather than the situation that
lage alleged that the(territory involved was existed when the petition for disconnection
. contiguous,did not exceed two square miles, was filed. But the statutory procedure for
was not already included within the limits the incorporation of a village also includes a
•
. of any municipality, cc�ittainecl in excess of judicial hearing to determine whether the
, residents living in «r c}ltz. s other thanstatutoryre .uirecents for incorporation
,
mttol)ile, and slid not` lie within one utile of have been met. (Ill.R.ev.Stat.1965, chap. 24,
the i,)otlrlclary of any existing municipality. par. 2-376; see People ex rel. Du Page
It thus,met the requirements of the statute County v. Lowe, 36 Ill.2d 372, 224 N.E.2d
fr .(1II.Rcv,.Stat.1965, chap.24,par. 2-3-5), and., 1.) It was at such a hearing that the court
t:he circuit court properly so found, and found that the petition to incorporate the r
• properly' ordered the referendum election. Village of Capitol Heights was in accord
with the statute and ordered the referendum
The city, ,however, emphasizes that por- eIcc�tic�,t. At that time the territory of the
tion of the statute'which provides that if the. proposed villa ge admittedly was more than
area sought to l,te :incorporated "contains one mile from the municipal boundaries of
fewer..than 7,500' residents and Ties within 'Rockford. The city,however, contends that
: :,. ; , one mile of the boundary line of any existing the second hearing, precipitated by its an-
illtiiiTCipallty, the'consent of such existing vexation subsequent to the court's determi-
municipality'must be obtained before such nation, must control:. Nothing in the dis •
-
' arca may be incorporated," (Ill.Rev.Stat.,' connection cases supports this argument.
. i: , : , 1965, chap. 24, par. '2-3-5.) Because the
r statute states that the required consent is to
be obtained -before such arca may be in-
[1--31 Cance the court &term:In�s, a fter
Corj orated" and:pr ovides that incorporation h'
hearing, that the statute has been satin-
F y ,- ied subsequent developments are irrelc-
• clots not occur until the returns of the elec
lr ,,� vain. (:dee People 'x rel. Gain v. Village
tion have Deco can�;:sscd (.t11.Rev•Stat•1965
! ofGreen Oaks, 55 I:ll.App.2c1 51, 204N.E.
.chap. 24, pars.,-3 j ,.
, 3_-6)fi the city argues
2:1 1-49.) This court has often held that
,, t at. the (uestion t.):. comph�.nce with the ,
.. int nroceeling for annexation mai, 1)e initi-
tatut must be determined as of the date of ateci after a petition for incorporationof
the hearingit ion its ob ection, rather than
. the same territory' has been filed, unless the
• the tette of the hearing o the petitiosi for
. incorporation is defeated. (See e. , . City
To support:,: ::� incorporation of the; village. pp,
t, . lview it reties upon numerous ciscoriec- of Countryside �. Village of La a Grange, i
• Ill2d. 163 180 .,l, c 488• �. _. . .
'tion . aale ltoialAili
'Lolls v Toticliett:c' 1.4 1 1.20 243, 150 N.E.
f f. t
!
•v. Village ofBurr Ri,4r;'; 81. T1I,.App..2c' 209, ,
, , *Y v ,; .� 20 17:`.St "I_t cannot, Nye think, be presumed
X225 .`.,.`...2(•I 33; •La ;�a file i\tttif7•nal 1:,?�1,-. fir•
that the le�xislature intended to give citizens
,, Vill.c,re of Wiltowbroc)k, 40 .ill.. pp• d 359,
4,
• +•.j�, and lc�,zil voters of certain territory the
r
.f 189 1 .I.,.2t1 c 90, In re Petition of ..ox, '32 -}
�o:ver ;o organize a Pillage, and at the
all.,,,? ,.1, ,: 2, 177 N.I4,.2cl 247; and Tn re artier, bya sti1�-
x _ Rc� i s;anit: t ill.' authorize other p
.,t ct.i.,, `'w- )is��,cinn t t iii of Certain Ter-
- : . t . Seiti,i 'lrl1.:�ccl t �, todefeat. that rig
l
!
1-11.,17,7.,' i )til Vi
ii „(.', 0. ,. fttltft4 III.� pp , ;
s r * * * • '',� )Ftt` teL Fjathorl4 v.
Xt ori t y k E-,.- i i H. 3 i 5,322, 54 N.E. 839,(loo.
'lift :;at tO rf'�' t,'(�t t i;it'd, y' t�` tit'.i9 own- ��'i-t.tt. i?s' ,f r t,t' city could. no defeat the
, .. ••;... . . , (. -•, ((S i;;t,it' upon tiRk' .1,0r«! 'i of :L. r1 1,1rilel ),t?-' incor m + rcd.in•; tl f.'"c tly by in-.
` itylar.;,• 11,1 vt111(1 r hold , ;c . t.'4„t ffrom :flexing ,!.Pt Qa {).:/.. ,i the territory to he
` 1, .i ,a �g j t' i 1 )t 1` l lowed it)
�� , q i(t �, { . )11•
+}1'-qf f t• ,. t Ott .: .... ('t Y >.. iiZt`f��'� �i'.:i..�i l s.i?� not ,
1.i i. 1•t.+'.i<l:i{S/4 f.i 1 7/�:{li ', f ♦• Cl i.�.i S ",
{ t t:'CI('•• y het
�7' i, r{t( 4 `"f it 1(fr i,t. 1p 'Of.(�� \ Ii t(Ii a
, , i titin. 41� ethc �.1 o y n. hire defeat ti �' t I-
1 •� 0, },' 5;_ i 1. ZJ2 ."' ' iw. ,..\-111(11 ?reit `:.' iil:' (ci�:•r,+ ltit.firil�1"'
1l �,,��.��t��.. t;t7.9. s, 1tt.lti
,.i, �,Y Fitt�'.t, sJE.t., tt�i;.r
•
1 ';l wY t Pity:, i 4' i +,' "ill.e t c; ;`s 1101 d. itit-'ies wit:fii,i! „ '1 ..".-i� 'ink' of th territory
i.� 0 t f. hearing be 't1':°i`t'l)t tilt t
� s •'” � �t1.tl;l,s'',�11s,; ;;, .;d�;". a t�; of t.e��.'r ��..c t.(} 3 '
•
4..
• fA
1
"'.•Ti
`'`+...».i+...•..'•.,r.+v-esxAa:+,+rs,a:r.ansr*r+•:;4++w+r+Y+s.,-, fi"7n'.'r*7+»+.•n-4, •';rrrw..r:z•+r'•gr•^s'!mar...'�J',+t',`x!'ilb'!rh.177gr^iRRRQ7R!'!mPgY.,f'z:ki",: ,<;.. ,a/.. ,
wn��w rte+»
s.
, , , ,
' 4
., \\,.A
, ,
, , . .. ,- ,-
. , ,
. , ,
. . .
. .:., - . 1 . ,
, ,
, , , .
. . ,,
.,
,, .
., . ,
. .
, ,
. ., ,
" , , ,
. . , ,
. ,
. ,
. .
. . , ,
. ,
,. - .•.•...��". .,. ,.., .:.. .. w„,,,,,,,,,,,..„
.. ,'f. � ,,,.. .. ,. yr,I4la,.a,Yiw�.Mn�sA..4..r.,4.fu�..w.+c-f.Y+.is�..U.Yrr•+
aiy.�tawi
. ,
. .
. .
. .. ..
. ,
, ,, ..
. .
. .
PEOPLE v. TRIBBETT Tn. 249 ,.
(.c f. �..,242.N.E.2d M•1 9
•
[4] \Vc' find it ,i tnet-css:.,t'‘,. to consider I. Criminal Law C:;-)4040))
either the chalik.m es that have been' 0(1- \\,-(,,,
.pen may lice a( Tin (.(l it+ I.ti�i(lt;rtc:�c�
vanced to the validity of the city's ainiexa \��1l tte there is t�i•ctc)f-, to connect it r.�itiz ,lt.
boll, car the fact thatgill of the area sought, ft'iiil'I.}t: .'"112cl crime, frit it is not necessary—
to he lil;or or:a.tc d I crti�•.=efl l.itiv tN\Wr oro..i- •
tU.c'st al�lisll tli:ti >art.it'tilar Nkc. t�'oi'. `,a,, c W-.
e s. 'Mlle' t acute contained no reitire1en .,,hich N' as actually ,ised and t‘` e.,tf, proper
concerning multiple*land o'lv7ncrsh11) wwilen connection is estaldshed' and it is slum n `
the petition was filed.-- :Bc cause the pe'titir)ta that defendant, possessed weapon which
for incorporation had been-dismissed before ,
could''h v been used.• in commission of
the reierendufn election was held, we are of crinie,'it may i e •• I "tted.
the opinion that a new referendum election
should be conducted. 2. Criminal Law 4Q,4(3)
• The judgments of the appellate and cir-
Where accused admitted that antonio-
bile in which gun was found was his and
cuit courts are reversed, and the cause is
• ,. that gun was his and he was identified by
remanded to the circuit court with dares,_
victim as ,one of two robbers who were
tions to conduct a new referendum election.
armed with guns and who fled in an ,auto
•.
Reversed and remanded, with directions, mobile fitting description of defendant's
automobile, gun found in defendant's auto-
mobile was sufficiently connected with
crime and accused to make it relevant aril
r •, admissible as evidence in robbery prosecu-
Kfti'M S EW SYSTtS
T tion•
3. Criminal Law X553
'Testimony of a single witness, if it is ,
411 111.2d 2117 positive.,and witness is credible, is su f f i--
The PEOPLE of the state of l iinois, cient for a conviction even though accused
Appellee, has contradicted such testimony.
V.
J. C. TRt BBET , Appellant. 4. Burglary C of(Q) S
No. 4l225. Robbery X24(3)
Where robbery victim, who had pre-
Supreme Court of lli:Loi;>. ,. ,
v ously been. shown two other suspects by .
Nov. 22, 196 8. ; police, unequivocally identified defendant
Defendant was convicted before the as ollr of robbers, such identification was
Circuit Court, Champaign County, Birch
sufficient to support conviction of defe.rd-
E. \i organ, J., of armed robbery and •
ant for robbery and bur;lacy even though
burglary, and he aPpealed. The Appellate accused had contradicted testimony. '
Court, Fourth District, 232 N.E.2d 523, af-
firmed, and Petition for leave to appeal was 5. Robbery 24(3)
granted. The Supreme Court, Ward, j.,
held that where the robbery victim, whoIDiscrepaancy between testimony of rob- :