him so that he died, and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, putting its decision upon the causal connection between the injury of the deceased and the conditions under which the defendant required him to work. In the language of the Massachusetts court, the act of the automobile driver and the conditions of employment that required the deceased to cross a street were contributing proximate causes, the latter of which was an actual risk of the employment."

While it is undoubtedly true that the danger or liability of injury would have been greater if the nature of the employment of defendant in error had required him to cross the street several times a day, such liability would be one of degree, only. If, as a part of his duties, he was required to cross the public street for the purpose of telephoning on the business of his employer and while so doing was struck by a passing vehicle, we are unable to see why, under the facts of this case, such an accident does not arise out of his employment as well as in the course of his employment. He was injured in performing a regular duty that was expected of him. It can be readily inferred from the evidence that it was part of his duties to supervise the delivery of material to the building, and that in so doing it was necessary to be on the adjacent streets to direct where such material should be deposited or brought on the premises. Had the accident occurred while he was so engaged it would have been substantially the same, in legal effect.

As to whether the defendant in error had suffered a complete disability that rendered him wholly and permanently incapable of work, all that need be said is that the evidence was conflicting. The Industrial Board found from the evidence that he was wholly and permanently disabled. There was evidence to support such finding, being the testimony of physicians who had examined the defendant in error that in their opinion his disability was permanent and

a total one and that he would not improve. Another physician testified on behalf of plaintiff in error that in his opinion the defendant in error was not totally incapacitated,that he could do some office work. The weight of this testimony was a matter to be passed upon by the Industrial Board. Where there is evidence to support the finding of the board, even though that evidence is controverted, the courts cannot pass upon its weight or sufficiency. ParkerWashington Co. v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill. 498; Chicago Dry Kiln Co. v. Industrial Board, 276 id. 556.

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

(No. 11789.-Reversed and remanded.)

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellee, vs. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant. Opinion filed February 20, 1918-Rehearing denied April 4, 1918.

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS—when the court may sustain objection to a particular part of sewer ordinance as unreasonable. Whether or not the whole system of sewers provided for by ordinance for a practically uninhabited region is reasonable need not be considered in determining the reasonableness of a part of the ordinance providing for a separate and independent portion of the system which does not serve any other territory or any other part of the system. (Washburn v. City of Chicago, 198 Ill. 506, distinguished.)

APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. N. HOOVER, Judge, presiding.

ISAAC B. LIPSON, and SYLVANUS GEORGE Levy, (Geo. A. MASON, of counsel,) for appellant.

HARRY F. ATWOOD, GEORGE P. FOSTER, and OTTO W. ULRICH, (SAMUEL A. ETTELSON, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CARTWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the

court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county overruling appellant's legal objections to an ordinance providing for lateral sewers on appellant's property and confirming an assessment after reducing it twelve and one-half per cent.

The ordinance provides for a main sewer in South Kedzie avenue, in Chicago, from Seventy-first street to Eightyseventh street, with a connecting sewer on Columbus avenue running southwesterly from Seventy-ninth street and Kedzie avenue to a subdivision known as Clarkdale, with certain lateral sewers in Clarkdale and the lateral sewers in question through Mitchell's addition to Clarkdale. The addition is a subdivision of eighty acres of land lying west of South Kedzie avenue, half a mile long east and west and a quarter of a mile wide north and south. The appellant owns 362 lots in that subdivision, and the ordinance provides for lateral sewers running from the main sewer in Kedzie avenue through the five streets of the subdivision, Eighty-third street, Eighty-third place, Eighty-fourth street, Eighty-fourth place and Eighty-fifth street, a distance of one-half mile on each street, or two and one-half miles of sewers in the subdivision. The ordinance provides for no other lateral sewers except to a limited extent in Clarkdale, where there are a few houses, and they are disconnected with these sewers. These five sewers are separate and independent from the general system, neither serving nor affording any sewer connection with any other property, and the appellant's lots were assessed more than $15,000. The objection was that the ordinance was unreasonable, oppressive and confiscatory because the subdivision was practically uninhabited and open prairie, where there was no occasion or use for sewers. The court heard the evidence and expressed his opinion, as a matter of fact, that the ordinance, so far as it provided for the five lateral sewers through

the subdivision, was unreasonable, but his view of the law was that the court could not sustain the objection unless the entire system was unreasonable, and the legal objections were therefore overruled.

Extending north from Seventy-first street, the starting point of the main sewer,-up to Sixty-seventh street there is a vacant field, used only for a golf links. From Seventy-first street south along the line of the main sewer there are only a few houses of small value, and there are no industries, factories, public buildings or business interests of any description near the avenue nor within a radius of one mile from any point of the subdivision. The nearest public transportation line is at Leavitt and Seventy-ninth streets, a mile and three-quarters from the nearest point of the subdivision, and the next nearest is on Kedzie avenue, north of the golf links, two miles north of the subdivision. West of the subdivision, at Clarkdale, (now called Ashburne Station,) there is a depot of the Wabash and Grand Trunk railways, from which there are four trains a day over the Wabash and two on the Grand Trunk to the Polk street depot, a distance of twelve and one-half miles. From Seventy-third street south there are four or five old houses, the most expensive one being worth about $1500 and none of the others being worth more than $500. The whole country is open prairie or used for truck farms, and south, as far as the eye can see from Seventy-first street, there are no other houses. Two tracts on the east side of Kedzie avenue have been platted,-one of eighty acres. and the other of about 100 acres, and there are no houses on either. The Baltimore and Ohio railroad has a station three-quarters of a mile east of the subdivision, called Edgemoor, and there is a subdivision there of eighty acres platted thirty years ago, with paved streets and sidewalks, on which there are four houses. At Clarkdale (or Ashburne Station) there are a few scattered houses. On the subdivision through which these sewers are projected there

are thirteen or fourteen old buildings occupied and used in connection with truck farms in the neighborhood, but the whole subdivision is otherwise uninhabited and is all grown up with grass and weeds. There are no passable roads in the whole subdivision and no visible mark to distinguish the location of lots. There is no public water supply in the vicinity or on Kedzie avenue south of the north side of the golf links, two miles away. The subdivision was laid out in 1890, and there is not, and never has been, any market or demand for lots. There is now no market for the property, except there have been some rumored sales of lots south of the subdivision for cemeteries, of which there are several in that vicinity. A real estate broker testifying for the city explained at length the nature of the improvements on Kedzie avenue, two miles north of the subdivision, and the advantages and prospects of other territory about as far away. He expressed the opinion that this region was "ripe" for industries and manufacturing enterprises, but his conclusion was not justified by any fact stated. How that could be as applied to this subdivision, without water supply, passable streets or sidewalks, and where anyone employed by or connected with industries or manufacturing enterprises would have to walk a mile and three-quarters to any feasible line of transportation, we are unable to discern. Another witness thought the crying need of the subdivision was sewers, and that the lack of sewers had hindered the property more than anything else and caused its low value, although there was also a need for water and no public water supply of any sort near the property. The sewers would be dry except for such rain water as might run into them, but it is suggested by counsel for the city that the residents could use the sewers by putting up a tank or barrel at a proper elevation to furnish pressure and send the water into the sewers and getting the water into the tank or barrel by some means, but the only testimony on that subject was that the shacks on the subdivision were not