City of Earlville v. Radley

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 86 N.E. 624,237 Ill. 242
• Parties: CITY OF EARLVILLE v. RADLEY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

237 Ill. 242

86 N.E. 624

CITY OF EARLVILLE

v.RADLEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, La Salle County; Edgar Eldredge, Judge.

Action by the City of Earlville against James S. Radley. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant, on the Appellate Court granting a certificate of importance, appeals. Reversed.

James J. Conway, for appellant.

George S. Wiley (Browne & Wiley, of counsel), for appellee.

The circuit court of La Salle county on a hearing without a jury of an appeal from a police magistrate of the city of Earlville rendered a judgment against the appellant for a penalty of $4 for absenting himself from four meetings of the city council, of which he was a member. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, and, a certificate of importance having been granted, an appeal was taken to this court. The penalty was imposed under the provisions of section 5 of an ordinance regulating sessions of the city council, which reads as follows: ‘Any member absenting himself from any of the meetings of the same may be fined the sum of one dollar, unless for some good reason he shall be excused by the city council, which fine, with the costs of the proceedings, may be collected by suit, to be commenced before the police magistrate in the name of the city of Earlville.’ A regular meeting of the council, which consisted of six aldermen and the mayor, was held on July 3, 1905, with all the members present, and was adjourned until July 7th. At that time three aldermen, including appellant, were absent, and the meeting was adjourned until July 14th, when the same three aldermen were absent. At the next regular meting, August 7th, the same three aldermen were absent, and the meeting was adjourned until August 9th, when they were again absent. At this last meeting a resolution was unanimously adopted by the three aldermen present that the absent members be fined $1 each for each of the four meetings from which they had been absent, the fines to be paid within three days. On August 14th this suit was begun before the police magistrate.

DUNN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The city of Earlville is organized under the general law, and the appellant's claim is that the city council had no authority to pass section 5 of the ordinance. Cities have only such powers as have been granted to them by the Legislature. ‘Municipal corporations exercise only delegated and limited powers, and, in the absence of express statutory provisions to that effect, courts are authorized to indulge in no presumptions in favor of the validity of their ordinances. If in conformity with the express or necessarily implied grant in the charter, they are valid, otherwise not.’ Schott v. People, 89 Ill. 195. ‘A city council can legislate only because it is authorized so to do by the state.’ City of Chicago v. McCoy, 136 Ill. 344, 26 N. E. 363,11 L. R. A. 413. The election of aldermen is provided for by the statute. The burden of office is imposed by law upon each person elected, and it is his duty, as stated in the oath required of him, faithfully to discharge the duties of the office to the best of his ability. But the Legislature has not seen fit by any general enactment to provide a penalty for the neglect of this duty, unless it is by the statute which imposes a fine upon and authorizes the removal from office of every person guilty of any palpable omission of duty. Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, c. 38, § 208. Nor has it conferred the power generally on the city council to impose penalties upon its elective...