Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Westhoff v. Commonfields of Cahokia Public Water District
Citations: 123 Ill. App. 2d 461; 259 N.E.2d 589; 1970 Ill. App. LEXIS 1461Docket: Gen. No. 69-60
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; May 22, 1970; Illinois; State Appellate Court
On November 14, 1959, plaintiffs advanced $4,625.53 to the defendant water district for the construction of water lines on subdivided property owned by the plaintiffs. They believed this amount would be reimbursed within a reasonable timeframe. Following a non-jury trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them the full amount. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish a contractual obligation for repayment. The case involved communications between George Westhoff, the plaintiffs' representative, and Rudy De Bourge, the district manager. Westhoff initially sought water service for his subdivision in July 1959, leading to a series of negotiations over costs and specifications. After a proposed payment of $2,960 was returned due to changes in the project, Westhoff ultimately issued the certified check for $4,625.53, which he endorsed to create a lien against the endorsers. Westhoff testified that he expected reimbursement within one to two years, and De Bourge had previously assured him he would be repaid. In April 1961, Westhoff was informed he could receive reimbursement if he signed a written agreement, which he found too ambiguous and thus refused to sign. Testimony from Joseph LiVigni, the current manager, confirmed that Westhoff was promised reimbursement but never received a formal contract. The discussions included concerns from Westhoff about overcharging related to the installation costs, and he was given a standard subdivider's contract, which he intended to review before signing. Mr. Flynn opined that a contract should be back-dated to when the Board began making contracts. Since 1962, the plaintiff has been recorded as having advanced $4,625.53 under 'Advances in Aid of Construction,' classified as a liability by the defendant’s auditors. Jack Mc-Keon clarified that this classification indicates funds were advanced to assist with water line construction. Although the plaintiff’s name was absent in 1960, a fixed liability of $12,093.14 was noted under the same category. Evidence indicated mutual agreement on repayment for the plaintiff’s advancement, with the water district manager assuring repayment upon issuance of the first check. No contrary statements were made regarding subsequent checks. Minutes from an April 1961 board meeting suggested board members supported compensating the plaintiff for his advancement. The classification consistently indicated funds advanced for construction, and the endorsement on the plaintiff’s check constituted an offer to fund construction costs, which the defendant accepted by endorsing and depositing the check. The court found sufficient evidence to establish a contractual obligation for the defendant to repay the plaintiff. The trial judge's assessment of the evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, and the court upheld the trial court's findings. Consequently, the judgment from St. Clair County was affirmed. Judges GOLDENHERSH and EBERSPACHER concurred.