County of Perry v. County of Jefferson.
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SHELDON |
| Citation | County of Perry v. County of Jefferson., 94 Ill. 214, 1879 WL 8682 (Ill. 1879) |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1879 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF PERRYv.COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Perry county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. MURPHY & BOYD, for the appellant.
Mr. SETH F. CREWS, for the appellee.
This was a suit, brought by the county of Jefferson, in this State, against the county of Perry, to recover for moneys expended in the construction and repair of bridges across Little Muddy river, the alleged boundary line between the two counties. It was agreed between the parties that the question to be decided by the court was, is little Muddy river the eastern boundary line of Perry county? If so found, then the court to render judgment for the plaintiff for $453.
The circuit court found for plaintiff, and rendered judgment for the above sum, and the defendant appealed to this court.
By an act of the General Assembly, approved January 29, 1827, (Laws 1827, p. 110,) the county of Perry was created with the following boundaries: “That all that tract of country within the following boundaries, to-wit: beginning at the north-east corner of township numbered four south of range numbered one west; thence due west on the line between townships three and four twenty-four miles, to the north-west corner of township four south of range four west; thence due south on the line between ranges four and five eighteen miles, to the south-west corner of township six south of range four west; thence due east on the line between townships six and seven twenty-four miles, to the south-east corner of township six south of range one west; thence due north on the third principal meridian line to the place of beginning, shall constitute the county of Perry.”
By a subsequent act of the General Assembly, approved February 6, 1835, entitled “An act to change the county line between Perry and Franklin counties,” it was enacted:
“Section 1. That so much of an act creating Perry county, approved January 29, 1827, as establishes the north-east corner of said county at the north-east corner of township number five south of range number one west, and so much as establishes the south-east corner of said county at the _____ west corner of township six south of range one west, is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2. That the north-east corner of Perry county shall be established in the middle of Little Muddy river, where the line crosses said river dividing townships three and four; thence due west on the line between townships three and four to the north-west corner of township four south of range four west; thence due south on the line between ranges four and five, eighteen miles to the south-west corner of township six south of range four west; thence due east on the line between townships six and seven to the middle of Muddy river; thence north with its meanderings to the place of beginning.
Sec. 3. That all that tract of country lying west of Little Muddy river, as before described, shall compose the county of Perry, and all that tract of country lying east of said river, heretofore belonging to the county of Perry, shall compose a part of the county of Franklin, any former law to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The question arises upon this statute of 1835, and is, whether by that statute the Little Muddy river is made the eastern boundary line of Perry county the entire extent of the county, or only to the extent it adjoins Franklin county, making the river the boundary line between Perry and Franklin counties only. The relative situation of Jefferson, Franklin and Perry counties and the Little Muddy river toward each other at the time of the passage of the act of 1835 is shown by the following plat:
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE
The words of the act of 1835, after abolishing the north-east and south-east corners of Perry county, are entirely clear, explicit and consistent in defining the boundaries of Perry county; and they make the Little Muddy river the eastern boundary line of Perry county the whole extent of the county. The river does cross the north line of the county, being the line dividing townships three and four at a point a short distance west of the then north-east corner of the county, and the north-east corner could be established in the middle of the river at that point, and the lines could consistently run from thence as described in the act. But this river also crosses the north line of Franklin county, it being the line dividing townships four and five at a point on that line a little more than one mile east of the north-west corner of Franklin county and of the third meridian, and it is in the middle of Little Muddy river at the latter point where, Perry county contends, the point of commencement was intended to be established by the act of 1835, and the line to run thence west on the line between townships four and five to the third meridian, thence north on that meridian six miles to the north-east corner of Perry county, thence west on the line between townships three and four, as described in the act. According to this latter description, the county line only between Perry and Franklin counties would be changed, as the title of the act of 1835 purports, and the line north between Perry and Jefferson counties would remain unchanged.
The operation of the act, too, would be consistent. There would be territory lying west of the river cut off from Franklin county, and there would be territory lying east of the river cut off from Perry county at the south-east corner; and the act declares that the part lying west of the river should belong to Perry county, and all that lying east of the river should belong to Franklin county.
Making the Little Muddy river the eastern boundary line of Perry county, the entire extent of the county involves this absurd consequence. The river cuts off from the north-eastern corner of Perry county the triangular portion of territory shown by the plat lying east and north-easterly of the river, which, under the act of 1835, would become a portion of Franklin county, the act attaching to Franklin county all that tract of country lying east of the river theretofore belonging to Perry county. Now this portion of territory is entirely detached...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Price v. City of Fargo
...Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 571; Wilson v. Biscoe, 11 Ark. 55; Erwin v. Moore, 15 Ga. 361; Chandler v. Lee, 1 Idaho 349; Perry County v. Jefferson County, 94 Ill. 214; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Binkert, 106 Ill. Dubuque v. Dubuque, 7 Iowa 262; Bailey v. Com. 11 Bush, 688; Cox v. Williams......
-
Town of Eufaula v. Gibson
...though not within the letter, and a thing within the letter is not within the statute unless within the intention. Perry County v. Jefferson County, 94 Ill. 214; People v. Hoffman, 97 Ill. 234; Anderson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 117 Ill. 26, 7 N.E. 129. The several provi......
-
People ex rel. Barrett v. Anderson
...or objects of the act, and its words may be enlarged or restricted, according to its true intent.’ So, in the case of County of Perry v. County of Jefferson, 94 Ill. 214, the literal language of the statute was disregarded to avoid the absurd consequence of throwing a tract of land into Jef......
-
State ex rel. Kemp v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Co.
...road, as alleged in the complaint. R. S., 1879, sec. 806; Railroad v. Long, 27 Kan. 684-695; Neenan v. Smith, 50 Mo. 525; Perry Co. v. Jefferson Co., 94 Ill. 214; v. Rock Island Co., 59 Mo. 285; State v. King, 44 Mo. 283; State v. Huck, 29 Wis. 202; Riddick v. Governor, 1 Mo. 147; Fowler v.......