City of Chicago v. Condell
| Decision Date | 07 February 1907 |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 954,224 Ill. 595 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. CONDELL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Certiorari by Millar J. Condell against the city of Chicago. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment in favor of petitioner, respondent appeals. Reversed.John W. Beckwith and Michael F. Sullivan (James Hamilton Lewis, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellant.
A. D. Gash, for appellee.
Millar J. Condell, a police patrolman of the city of Chicago, was discharged from the service by the chief of police in accordance with the recommendation of the civil service commissioners of said city. He filed a petition for a commonlaw writ of certiorari in the superior court of Cook county, for the purpose of bringing up the record of the civil service commissioners touching the matter of his discharge. A judge of the superior court awarded the writ, and, upon return thereof being made, a judgment quashing the record was entered in the superior court, from which an appeal was taken to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment of the superior court was affirmed. By its further appeal the city of Chicago has brought the record to this court, and asks a reversal of the appellate and superior court judgments. The petition averred that Condell had been a member of the police department of the city of Chicago for 10 years; that he had duly passed the required examination, and had been regularly appointed to said position in accordance with the provisions of the civil service regulations, and that he had been discharged on December 2, 1902, for the alleged violation of rule 69 of the rules and regulations of the department of police, for ‘neglect to pay, within a reasonable time, a just indebtedness,’ and prayed for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the civil service commissioners and their secretary, directing them to certify the record of their proceedings, together with the charges, to the superior court of Cook county for review. The petition charges that there is no rule of the civil service commission or of the police department providing for the discharge of a patrolman upon the charges made against him; that said civil service commission had no jurisdiction to hear the charges preferred against him in this case and order his removal and that in entertaining said charges and issuing summons against petitioner by the trial board, hearing evidence, and the finding of petitioner guilty by said board, the approval of said finding by said commission and entering the order of removal, the said board and commission were without jurisdiction, and acted without lawful authority.
The return to the writ set out a copy of the charges and specifications made against appellee before the civil service commissioners; also a copy of a resolution of the civil service commissioners appointing a police trial board, and a finding by said police trial board that appellee was guilty of the charge made against him, and ordering his removal from his position on the police force.
It is first contended by appellant that the common-law writ of certiorari will not lie to review a proceeding of the civil service commissioners for the removal of an officer appointed under the civil service rules and regulations. This question has been settled to the contrary by Powell v. Bullis, 221 Ill. 379, 77 N. E. 575, which was decided since the briefs in this case were filed. Much of the briefs of both parties to this suit is devoted to a discussion of whether the civil service commission had any legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fillmore v. Taylor
...¶ 77 A petition for a common-law writ of certiorari must allege "good cause" for the issuance of a writ ( City of Chicago v. Condell , 224 Ill. 595, 597, 79 N.E. 954 (1906) ): the petition must allege that the inferior tribunal or the agency exercising a quasi-judicial function ( Reichert ,......
-
Bill v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF SCHOOL DIST. 99
...by the petition for the writ." Schultheis, 240 Ill. at 170, 88 N.E. at 564. This general proposition originated in City of Chicago v. Condell, 224 Ill. 595, 79 N.E. 954 (1906), where the Illinois Supreme Court determined that a public servant's delay in filing a petition for common law writ......
-
Ashley v. Pierson
... ... Bertocchi, Solicitor General, Diane M. Potts, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, for Mark A. Pierson ... Justice STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court: ... 665, 630 N.E.2d 830, 833 (1994) ... In City of Chicago v. Condell, 224 Ill. 595, 598-99, 79 N.E. 954, 956 (1906), the supreme court first held ... ...
-
People ex rel. Mulvey v. City of Chicago
...and in proceedings in certiorari, both of which are at law. Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113, 84 N.E. 170;City of Chicago v. Condell, 224 Ill. 595, 79 N.E. 954;People v. Hanker, 197 Ill. 409, 64 N.E. 253;Trustees of Schools v. School Directors, 88 Ill. 100;People v. Schnepp, 179 Ill. ......