City of Champaign v. City of Champaign Tp.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 34960,34960
• Citation: 16 Ill.2d 58,156 N.E.2d 543
• Parties: CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, Appellant, v. CITY OF CHAMPAIGN TOWNSHIP, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 543

156 N.E.2d 543

16 Ill.2d 58

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, Appellant, v. CITY OF CHAMPAIGN TOWNSHIP, Appellee.

No. 34960.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 23, 1959.

Rehearing Denied March, 18, 1959.

John L. Franklin and Philip C. Zimmerly, Champaign, for appellant.

John J. Bresee and James L. Capel, Champaign, for appellee.

Charles M. O'Brien, Chicago, for Illinois Hospital Association, amicus curiae.

DAILY, Chief Justice.

Leave to appeal has been granted in this cause to review a judgment of the Appellate Court which affirmed a finding by the circuit court of Champaign County that appellant, the city of Champaign, could not recover from appellee, City of Champaign Township, for hospital services furnished by a city-owned hospital to Robert Clay, a resident of the city whom the complaint describes as a 'medically indigent person.' See: 17 Ill.App.2d 449, 150 N.E.2d 657. The boundaries of the city and township are coterminous, and at issue is the question of which governmental unit must bear the burden for such services. There is neither constitutional nor common-law obligation upon any governmental unit to support the poor and destitute. The whole matter of poor relief is, rather, statutory in origin, and the legislature, in the exercise of the police power, is free to impose the obligation for the support of the poor on such of the political subdivisions of the State as it may choose. People ex rel. Heydenreich v. Lyons, 374 Ill. 557, 30 N.E.2d 46, 132 A.L.R. 511; County of Perry v. City of Du Quoin, 99 Ill. 479; Town of Fox v. Town of Kendall, 97 Ill. 72. Briefly, in the instant case, it is the theory of the township, adhered to by the courts below, that the obligation for the services in question has been imposed upon the city by virtue of section 44-6 of the Revised Cities and Villages Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 24, par. 44-6.) The city, for its part, insists that the later enacted Public Assistance Code imposes liability on the township. We have permitted the Illinois Hospital Association to express its views in a brief filed as amicus curiae.

Factual background reveals that the city of Champaign owns and operates a public hospital, known as Burnham City Hospital, under authority granted by the legislature in article 44 of the Revised Cities and Villages Act. See: Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 24, pars. 44-1 through 44-14. Article 44, which we shall hereinafter refer to as the hospital statute, is a special grant of power which admittedly circumscribes the rights, duties and powers of a city choosing to operate a public hospital. On December 11, 1956, Robert Clay was admitted to the hospital under emergency conditions and remained a patient until June 22, 1957, during which period he received hospital services totaling $4,019.80. At the time of admission Clay had been a resident of the city for twelve months. He was not eligible for or receiving assistance under any of the provisions of the Public Assistance Code, and the city's complaint alleges that he did not have sufficient money, property or other resources to meet the cost of the services rendered. After investigating the case the township paid certain doctor bills and a charge for ambulance, apparently conceding that the Public Assistance Code rendered it liable to that extent, but it has denied liability for the hospital services on the ground that such obligation is imposed upon cities maintaining public hospitals by section 44-6 of the hospital statute.

Insofar as pertinent to this proceeding, section 44-6, which is titled: 'Use of hospital,' provides as follows: 'Every hospital established or purchased under this article shall be maintained for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city in which it is established who are sick, injured, or maimed. But every inhabitant of that city who is not a pauper shall pay to the hospital board, * * * reasonable compensation for occupancy, nursing, care, medicines, or attendance, according to the rules and regulations prescribed by the board. * * * For the purposes of this section, a 'pauper' means any indigent person who has been a bona fide resident of the city for at least twelve months prior to the time of becoming a patient for treatment in the hospital.' While this court has not heretofore been called upon to construe this section in a similar factual setting, it does appear that, during the long period of its existence, the section has been commonly interpreted to mean that the legislature thereby imposed upon cities operating public hospitals the obligation and duty of furnishing hospital services to persons qualifying as inhabitant paupers, and that no recovery could be had by the city from the governmental unit otherwise charged with providing general assistance to the poor and indigent. (See: Attorney General's Report and Opinions, 1927, p. 191; 1932, p. 534.) This was the result reached by the Appellate Court in the instant case, its reasoning being that since section 44-6 requires city hospitals to treat inhabitant paupers free of charge, there could be no recovery by the city from the township or any other governmental unit for hospital services rendered in discharge of the public duty imposed upon the city by the statute.

On this appeal the city of Champaign appears to agree that it has the statutory duty of furnishing hospital services to its pauper inhabitants, but contends, first, that section 44-6 is not to be interpreted as exempting the township from ultimate liability for such services or, second, that the later enacted Public Assistance Code now imposes the obligation upon the township. In support of its firts permise the city rationalizes that the hospital statute has nothing to do with poor relief, and that section 44-6, when read in pari materia with the Public Assistance Code, must be construed only as relieving inhabitant paupers from personal liability for hospital services, leaving the city free to be reimbursed therefor by the governmental unit charged with providing general assistance. The force of such argument is, of course, that the legislature did not intend by section 44-6 to relieve counties or townships of the obligation of providing hospital services to pauper inhabitants of a city maintaining a public hospital and, conversely, that while the duty for rendering the services was imposed upon the city, it was not intended that the city should bear the cost therefor. Such a construction is untenable when the evolution of the statutes involved is considered.

The city hospital statute, substantially in its present form, was a part of the Charities Act from 1891 through 1940 (See: Laws of 1891, p. 142, and Ill.Rev.Stat.1939 chap. 23, pars. 165-176) and did not become a part of the Cities and Villages Act until 1941 when that act and related statutes were the subject of an extensive revision. (See: Laws of 1941, vol. 2, pp. 225-229.) With specific reference to section 44-6, above quoted, the first two sentences, viz., those which state that the hospital shall be maintained for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city and that every inhabitant who is not a pauper shall pay compensation, have been a part of the hospital statute since 1891. The concluding sentence, on the other hand, containing a definition of a pauper, was not added to the section until 1941 when the statute was incorporated into the Cities and Villages Act. The addition of the definition to the statute cannot be said to have been made without some purpose and it is our opinion that the legislature therebyclarified its intention that cities maintaining public hospitals, rather than the governmental unit charged legislature thereby clarified its intention needy, were to bear the obligation of providing hospital services to pauper inhabitants of the city. In 1941, by virtue of section 15 of the Paupers Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 107, par. 15.1) the relief of poor and indigent persons 'lawfully resident' was charged generally to townships in counties under township organization, and section 17 of the same act (par. 17) defined a 'resident' as a person who had made his or her home in the township for a continuous period of six months. Had there been no intention, when section 44-6 was re-enacted to its present form, to impose upon cities maintaining public hospitals a separate obligation to provide hospital services to its pauper inhabitants, there would have been neither need nor purpose for a separate definition of a pauper and separate residence requirements to be added to the hospital statute. Additionally, we may consider that the legislature, when it re-enacted the former portions of section 44-6 in 1941, did so in face of the commonly accepted view that its language imposed on city hospitals on obligation of providing hospital services to inhabitant paupers, and relieved other governmental units of the same obligation. It is axiomatic that a re-enacted statute will be given the same construction as that given the prior act which it follows, since the legislature is presumed to know the construction the statute has been given and, by re-enactment, is assumed to have intended for the new statute to have the same effect. Lamere v. City of Chicago, 391 Ill. 552, 63 N.E.2d 863; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36, 20 N.E.2d 53. Here the legislature went a step further in 1941 when it provided a separate definition of a pauper to have application only under the hospital statute, thus carving out an exception to the pauper laws otherwise applicable. In the face of such action it is manifest that the legislative intent embodied in section 44-6 was to impose upon cities maintaining a public hospital the obligation of providing hospital services to its pauper inhabitants and that such intent was not limited, as is here contended, to a purpose of providing only that such paupers would be relieved of personal liability for the services. Unless, as the city further urges, it can be said that the...