Gibson et al. v. City of Chicago. raises a presumption in favor of the regularity of all the proceedings levying the assessment, by requiring the court to render a judgment upon the report of the collector, which is not required to refer to or state any of them, but merely to describe the land, and state the amount of the assessment against each parcel. It was for the defendant to overcome this presumption by showing affirmatively, that something was omitted or improperly done. There was no difficulty in proving by the city clerk, that the council had never referred the assessment back to the commissioners, and required them to correct it; or that the council had never corrected it themselves, or that there was no such corrected assessment roll, as is referred to by the ordinance of the 5th of October, 1857. The absence of such proceedings is as capable of proof, as any affirmative fact, which a party is ever required to establish in a court of justice. Nor does the statute require any additional notice to be given, when an assessment is referred back to commissioners, nor in case the consideration of the assessment is postponed or laid over, from one meeting of the Common Council to another. We are of opinion that the owner of the land has not sustained the objections which he interposed in the court below, and the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. DAVID GIBSON et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant in Error. ERROR TO COOK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. In making assessments for public improvements, in the city of Chicago, the costs of engineering, superintending and collecting, may be included. The Common Pleas Court, has the same authority to continue a case for assessments, that it has to continue any other case. In showing an assessment, there must be something to indicate clearly what the figures used, stand for, or are intended to represent. On the 11th day of May, 1857, the Common Council of the city of Chicago ordered that Canal street, from Van Buren street to Old street, be filled in accordance with estimate and specifications of the city superintendent, and also ordered that $20,814, be assessed upon the real estate in the west division of the city, deemed benefited by said improvements, and elected three disinterested freeholders, to make such assessment. Gibson et al. v. City of Chicago. The estimate of the city superintendent, above referred to, was made on the 9th day of May, 1857, under a requisition of the committee on streets and alleys of the west division, and after stating the general character of the work to be performed, states that the cost will be as follows: Whole Distance (lineal) 7,300 feet. 1,520 cords stone broken and delivered, $12.. 7,240 cubic yards earth filling, 45c.. Advertising.... Engineering and Superintendence. Total estimated cost. .$18,240.00 2,258.00 16.00 75.00 75.00 150.00 .$20,814.00 On the 18th day of July, 1857, the commissioners reported that they had assessed said sum of $20,814, upon the real estate therein described, as the only real estate benefited by said improvement, and that the benefits resulting thereto were in the proportion of said sum set oposite to each lot, part of lot and land respectively in said assessment roll. They further reported that said assessment did not exceed three per cent. per annum on the property assessed. The following is a copy of the assessment roll so far as the same relates to the property of the plaintiffs in error: ASSESSMENT ROLL. A description of the real estate in the west division of Chicago, deemed benefited by Macadamizing Canal street, from Van Buren street to Old street, with the valuation thereof, and of the sums of money severally assessed thereon, for benefits, by the commissioners, to wit: The assessment roll shows that the whole assessment is less than three per cent. upon the assessed value of the whole property assessed. The commissioners' assessment was returned to and filed in the city clerk's office, July 22nd, 1857. The city clerk gave Gibson et al. v. City of Chicago. notice, by publication in the corporation newspaper, to file objections to the assessment, on the 22nd of July, 1857, which notice was published ten days consecutively, commencing July 23rd, 1857. The assessment was confirmed by the council, October 5th, 1857. A warrant was issued to the collector, in due form, October 9th, 1857. On the 27th day of January, 1858, the collector reported to and filed with the clerk of the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, a list of lands, lots, parcels of land, and other real estate, situated within the city of Chicago, on which said assessment remained due and unpaid, attached to which report were certificates of the publisher of the corporation newspaper, of the publication of a notice by the city collector, that said warrant had come into his hands, and requiring payment of the same; and also, of a notice of his intended application for judgment, at a special term of the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, to be held on the 27th day of January, 1858. The notice of the application for judgment described the warrant as follows: WEST DIVISION. "Special warrant No. 306, dated October 5, 1857, for macadamizing Canal street from Van Buren to Old street." On the 28th day of January, 1858, Daniel Brainard, E. Morrison, and James Granger, filed their objections to the rendition of a judgment against block 57, S. S. Addition to Chicago, and blocks 5, 6, 7, and 8, in Brainard & Evans' Addition to Chicago. Among other objections filed were the following: 1st. That the amount levied and assessed was greater than the cost of the work authorized to be done by said order. 2nd. That the assessment made was unequal between the parties assessed, and not in relative proportion to amount of benefit to them, respectively, from said improvement. 4th. That the amount of benefit assessed on the property of the objectors, was much greater than upon adjoining property, appraised by the commissioners under such order at the same amount as the property of these defendants, and in every way similarly situated and equally benefited by said improvement. 10th. That the city council were not authorized to assess for certain purposes set forth in the estimate of the superintendent, and on account of which certain amounts were computed and assessed in said assessment; to wit, for engineering and superintending, the sum of $75 was computed in the sum to be assessed; for collecting, the sum of $150; for assessing, the sum of $75; whereas, the duties of engineering, superintending, Gibson et al. v. City of Chicago. collecting, and a portion of the assessing, appertain to and are to be performed exclusively by certain salaried officers. 12th. That the assessment was not delivered to the city clerk within forty days from the appointment of the commis sioners. 13th. That the notice gives no description of the lands or lots, or of the amount of taxes or assessment, interest or costs. 15th. That said assessment upon said property, assesses the same at an amount greater than three per cent. thereon. On the trial, on the 28th day of January, 1858, the plaintiff offered in evidence the above warrant. The defendants offered in evidence the estimate of the city superintendent above referred to, which was objected to by plaintiff, and excluded by the court. The defendants also offered in evidence, a certificate of the city clerk, showing that an assessment roll was then on file in his office, for planking Van Buren street from the south-west plank road, which said assessment was confirmed July 6th, 1857; that lot one, of block 53, of School Section Addition to Chicago, was assessed in the name of E. Morrison, at a value of $2,500, and to pay $53.54, for said planking, and showing that it appeared by a warrant on file in the office of the city comptroller of said city, that said assessment had been paid; which it was agreed should have the same force and effect as the original papers to which they refer, and none other. The court, after hearing the case, took the same under advisement, and continued it until the next term. At the June term, 1858, the court rendered a judgment against the lands and lots described in the warrant, for the sum annexed to each lot and parcel of land, and for costs, and for ten per cent. thereon for damages, and ordered a sale of the property against which judgment was rendered. Daniel Brainard, E. Morrison, and James Granger, bring the case to this court by writ of error. David Gibson, John Gooche, C. B. Farwell, R. Finneman, P. Brennan, Michael Walsh, George W. Penny, J. F. Irwin, M. Kehoe, and Jeremiah Clowry, also bring the case to this court by writ of error. The errors assigned in both cases are, 1st. Judgment should have been for defendants, and not for plaintiff. 2nd. The objections of the defendants should not have been overruled. 3rd. The court should have admitted the evidence offered by defendants, and set forth in bill of exceptions. 4th. The assessment roll and warrant are invalid, having |