Cristman v. Peck
| Decision Date | 30 September 1878 |
| Citation | 90 Ill. 150,1878 WL 10124 |
| Parties | PHILENA CRISTMANv.TIMOTHY T. PECK et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of DeKalb county; the Hon. THEODORE D. MURPHY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. KELLUM & CARNES, for the appellant.
Mr. R. L. DIVINE, for the appellees.
The relator applied for a mandamus, based on the assumed unauthorized act of the respondents as school directors in refusing to admit her children to the school until they brought a written excuse from her for their previous absence, to compel the directors to admit them to the school without such written excuse. There is no averment, and no ground for assuming, that the refusal to admit the relator's children to the school, for the alleged cause, was permanent, or had reference to any other than the term being taught at the time the children neglected to bring the required excuse. That term expired on the second day of April, 1875. The petition of the relator was not filed until the first day of April, 1875, and the writ was served on the next day, the second day of April, being the last day of the school, and the first term of court at which there could possibly be a hearing (and the term to which the writ was returnable,) commenced on the second Monday of June next following.
It is therefore clear that no judgment that could possibly have been rendered in the case could have had the effect desired by the petition--namely, the admission of the relator's children to the term of school which closed on the second day of April, 1875.
The petition is not framed upon the hypothesis that the relator intends that her children shall, in the future, be absent from terms which they may commence attending, and that the respondents will thereupon again refuse to admit them to the school--even if that were admissible--and the evidence shows that, at the terms since taught, relator's children have been admitted without objection.
The rule is, the court will refuse a mandamus, “if it be manifest that it must be vain and fruitless, or useless, or can not have a beneficial effect.” Tapping on Mandamus, (Am. ed.) 67--(side p. 15.)
On this principle it was held in Woodbury v. Co. Comrs. of Piscataquis, 40 Maine, 304, that the writ will be denied where a person applies for it for the purpose of being placed in an office filled by an annual election, to which he alleges he was duly chosen, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Dickinson v. Bd. of Trade of Chicago
...N. E. 400,16 L. R. A. 429;People v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 62 Ill. 510;People v. Ketchum, 72 Ill. 212;People v. Lieb, 85 Ill. 484;Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill. 150;Everitt v. Commissioners, 1 S. D. 370, 47 N. W. 296; High, Extr. Rem. (3d Ed.) §§ 6, 9; State v. Baker, 38 Wis. 78. In High on Extr......
-
State ex rel. Murchie v. Bath
...writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the doing of a useless act or one which would prove unavailing, fruitless, or nugatory. Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill. 150;Gormley v. Day, 114 Ill. 185, 28 N.E. 693;People v. City of Streator, 258 Ill. 273, 101 N.E. 599. The court will not decide questio......
-
State ex rel. Murchie v. Bath
... ... doing of a useless act or one which would prove unavailing, ... fruitless, or nugatory. Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill ... 150; Gormley v. Day, 114 Ill. 185, 28 N.E. 693; ... People v. City of Streator, 258 Ill. 273, 101 N.E ... 599. The court ... ...
- Kenneally v. City of Chicago