delivered the opinion of the court.
Harts v. City of Chicago, 189 Ill. App. 119 (1914)
Oct. 8, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,448
189 Ill. App. 119
Edwin B. Harts, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 19,448.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
Reversed and judgment here.
Opinion filed October 8, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action of the fourth class brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Edwin B. Harts against the City of Chicago to recover $290 alleged to be due as interest upon two deposits made by plaintiff with defendant for the purpose of having certain water pipe extensions made in a certain street by the defendant. *120The first deposit was made on June 4, 1907, and the second deposit on June 19, 1907. Plaintiff received the following receipt or certificate of deposit:
“$1302.33 City of Chicago. #1299.
Department of Public Works,
Bureau of Engineering.
June 19th, 1907, June 4th, 1906.
WATER PIPE EXTENSION DIVISION.
It is hereby certified that Edwin B. Harts has advanced the sum of Thirteen Hundred and Two and 33/100 Dollars for the purpose of laying 980 feet of 6 inch water supply pipe in Mozart Street 320 feet ■south of 43rd St. to 45th St.
Section 1906 Revised Code: Whenever, upon a proper survey it is shown that a permanent annual revenue of Ten (10) cents per lineal foot is being derived from such water mains so laid then such money so advanced as aforesaid shall be repaid to the person or persons so advancing the same; provided, however, if the money so advanced, is not paid back within two years, interest at the rate of Three and One Half (3½) per cent, per annum shall be allowed after the expiration of such two years until paid.
Approved:
John Erickson,
City Engineer.
Approved:
John J. Hanberg,
Commissioner of Public Works,
By
Paul Redeski,
Deputy Commissioner.
E. L. Lucas,
Supt. Water Pipe Extension.”
On April 16, 1912, the plaintiff was notified by the City that a survey of the water extension in question showed a revenue to the City of 16 cents per lineal foot, and that the City would pay the said certificate of the plaintiff upon presentation of the same. The plaintiff presented the certificate to the City, and the City offered him a voucher for the amount of the principal advanced by the plaintiff, but it refused to pay *121him any interest on the same. The plaintiff accepted the amount of the principal under protest.
Abstract of the Decision.
Interest, § 4 * —construction of agreement as to time interest begins to run. A certificate of deposit given, for money advanced to a city for having certain water pipe extensions made in a street, construed as providing that a specified rate of interest was to begin to run on the deposit two years after the date of the deposit, instead of two years after a survey showing a permanent annual revenue of ten cents per foot derived from the water mains so laid (following Merchants Loan and Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 264 Ill. 76).
The case was tried by the court without a jury. The parties stipulated “that, during a period from 1905 to 1911, the City of Chicago had, in numerous instances, repaid to the holders of similar certificates the principal and interest at the rate of three and one-half per cent, per annum upon said deposits, the interest being computed in these other cases at a period beginning two years after the date of the deposit of the money with the City up to the date of payment, and that the City has done this in cases where a survey had not been made. ’ ’ To reverse a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.
Burke, Jackson & Burke, for plaintiff in error.
William H. Sexton, for defendant in error; Nicholas Michels, of counsel.