Clark v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 08 April 1908 |
| Citation | 84 N.E. 170,233 Ill. 113 |
| Parties | CLARK v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Writ of Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Jesse Holdom, Judge.
Certiorari by William J. Clark against the city of Chicago and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, reversing a judgment of the superior court quashing the writ and dismissing the petition, defendants appeal. Reversed.Clyde L. Day and George W. Miller (Edward J. Brundage, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellants.
A. D. Gash, for appellee.
This was a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari, filed in the superior court of Cook county, to review the action of the civil service commission of the cith of Chicago in removing Willaim J. Clark from the police force of the city of Chicago. The writ was issued and served, and upon a return being filed the superior court quashed the writ and dismissed the petition, and, the judgment of the superior court quashing the writ and dismissing the petition having been reversed by the Appellate Court for the First District, a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.
The petitioner was removed from office on the 12th day of August, 1903, and the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed June 14, 1904, and, as no legal excuse for the delay in filing said petition is shown in the petition, it is insisted that the superior court properly quashed the writ and dismissed the petition.
It has often been held by this court that the common-law writ of certiorari is not a writ of right, and issues only upon application to the court and for special cause. Trustees of Schools v. School Directors, 88 Ill. 100. The reason of this rule is said to be that the inferior tribunals to which said writ issues exercise powers in which the people at large are interested, and that great detriment or inconvenience might result if the writ were inadvertently issued and the powers exercised by said tribunals improperly interfered with (People v. Supervisors, 15 Wend. [N. Y.] 198); and when a great public detriment or inconvenience is likely to result from interfering with the proceedings of an inferior tribunal, the common-law writ of certiorari should not issue, and, if the writ is issued improvidently, upon the facts being presented to the court, the writ will be quashed. Board of Supervisors v. Magoon, 109 Ill. 142;Commissioners of Drainage District v. Griffin, 134 Ill. 330, 25 N. E. 995.
There is no statute limiting the time within which a common-law writ of certiorari may issue, but the courts, by analogy, have established a limitation in regard to the issuing of such writs, the same as the limitation which governs the prosecution of a writ of error. Yet it is held a party seeking to review the action of an inferior tribunal by the common-law writ of certiorari must act promptly, and in case of delay must show, by his petition for the writ, some legal excuse why he has not moved more promptly. In City of Chicago v. Condell, 224 Ill. 595, 79 N. E. 954, it was held that where the petition was not filed and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Warren v. Christian, 2232
... ... 367; 63 L.Ed. 650; Nicholas v. United States, 257 ... U.S. 73, 66 L.Ed. 134; Clark v. City of Chicago ... (Ill.) 84 N.E. 170; Stone v. Board of ... Commissioners, 176 S.W. 39; ... ...
-
Bill v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF SCHOOL DIST. 99
...the refusal of the writ." Condell, 224 Ill. at 598-99, 79 N.E. at 956. The specific six-month rule later emerged in Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113, 84 N.E. 170 (1908). At the time Clark was decided, there existed a statutory method to review judgments of justices of the peace by wri......
-
Ashley v. Pierson
...192, 197-98, 194 Ill.Dec. 614, 627 N.E.2d 1256, 1259-60 (1994) (discussing Condell and its progeny). In Clark v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill. 113, 115, 84 N.E. 170, 171 (1908), the supreme court adhered to Condell and established six months as the period of time within which a petitioner must ......
-
People ex rel. Mulvey v. City of Chicago
...as affording a defense in proceedings in quo warranto 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. Scho......