delivered the opinion of the court:
An оrdinance providing for paving a part of Sandusky street, in the village of Catlin, to be paid fоr by a special tax, was passed on February 19, 1917, and approved on the same day by thе mayor, and a petition was filed in the county court of Vermilion county for the confirmation of the tax. The appellants filed thirty-two objections for their several pieces of property, the thirty-first and thirty-second of which were as follows:
“(31) That said village of Catlin was dissolved as a municipality under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, and there is not now a legal or valid municipality, and has no lawful right to make any public improvement or levy a special assessment thereof.
“(32) That there is no such municipality as the village of Catlin; that said prоceeding is in all respects uncertain, informal and insufficient.”
The court, on motion of the рetitioner, struck from the files these objections and overruled the remaining legal objeсtions. The objectors waived further controversy as to the remaining questions upon the record and the court confirmed the tax.
The court erred in striking from the files the objections that thе village had been dissolved and that there was no such municipality as the village of Catlin. The stаtute requires courts to take judicial notice of the organization of cities and villagеs under the general law, but while no evidence is required to show facts of which the court by law must take notice, that requirement does not obviate the necessity of an objection. Thе method by which the fact is' to be ascertained does not affect any question of pleading. Courts may require instruction or information concerning the fact which, as a judicial functiоn, they are required to know, and may in all cases, upon their own motion, make such examinаtion or inquiry as they deem necessary to verify the fact. (Potwin v. Johnson,
On the hearing the objеctors offered in evidence the record of a petition to determine whether thе village should be dissolved, an order for an election on August 29, 1910, and the recorded result of thе election as 145 for and 79 against the dissolution, showing that the proposition was carried. They also offered to prove that the village clerk and president of the board of trustеes gave to the Secretary of State notice of the result of the election аnd filed in the office of the county clerk a statement showing the result. The offered evidenсe was rejected, and whether the ruling was right or wrong is immaterial, because the county cоurt would properly take judicial notice, and this court on review, exercising the same function, takes judicial notice, that the village was organized under the general law, that aftеr the election to determine whether the village should be dissolved it continued to act and exercise corporate powers as a municipality, and was acting by a chаnge in organization under the act providing for the commission form of government. The question оf the corporate existence, therefore, could not be raised in this proceeding.
The judgment is affirmed.
Jndgment affirmed.