Dolese v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 15 March 1888 |
| Citation | 16 N.E. 218,124 Ill. 140 |
| Parties | DOLESE et al. v. PIERCE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Court county; JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge.
This was a petition for mandamus, by John Dolese and Jason H. Shephard, to compel Daniel A. Pierce, president of the board of trustees of Hyde Park, to sign a warrant on the treasurer of the village of Hyde Park for labor performed and material furnished.
John N. Jewett and James P. Root, (Henry V. Freeman and Sidney Smith, of counsel), for appellants.
The legislature at its last session passed an act entitled ‘An act to amend sections two, four, six, seven, ten, eleven, and twelve of art. 3 of an act entitled ‘An act to revise the law in relation to township organization,’ approved and in force March 4, 1874.' Laws 1887, p. 300. By the twelfth section of the act as amended it is provided that ‘the county board of each county shall have full power and jurisdiction to unite into one, two, or more contiguous towns, whether incorporated under any special or general act, or organized under this act, and to disconnect territory from one of such towns, and annex the same to another; but no such towns shall be united, nor shall territory be taken from one such town, and at the same time annexed to another, except in the following manner.’ The act then proceeds to prescribe the manner of carrying its provisions into effect, after which occurs the following proviso: ‘And, provided, that, where said town to which such territory is annexed is wholly within the limits of an incorporated city, the limits of said city shall thereupon be extended to include the territory annexed to such town.’ Pursuant to the provisions of said section, on the 3d of October, 1887, a petition, signed by the requisite number of legal voters of the town of Hyde Park, was presented to the board of commissioners of Cook county, praying that a specifically designated portion of said town be disconnected therefrom, and annexed to the adjoining town of South Chicago, both of which towns lie in the county of Cook, and the latter wholly within the corporate limits of the city of Chicago. The county authorities, under the provisions of the act, submitted the matter, as therein directed, to a vote of the people of the two towns; and, upon a canvass of the votes cast, the requisite majority was found to be in favor of the proposed change in the boundaries of said towns, and it was so declared. The corporate authorities of Cook county, and of the city of Chicago, have both officially recognized the alleged new order of things, and the latter are now exercising municipal jurisdiction over that portion of the town of Hyde Park claimed, by virtue of said proceedings, to have been disconnected therefrom, and made a part of the town of South Chicago. The village of Hyde Park, which was incorporated under the general law in 1872, and whose territorial limits and municipal jurisdiction, prior to said proceedings, were co-extensive with the town of Hyde Park, does not acquiesce in the action taken by the two towns and the county board, in so far as it is sought to affect its own jurisdiction and powers as an incorporated village within the alleged disconnected territory, but disregards such action altogether. After the disconnection and annexation proceedings were consummated, which occurred on the 3d day of December, 1887, the village of Hyde Park, not regarding such action as binding upon it, ordered certain improvements to be made upon some of the streets in the alleged disconnected territory, which appellants claim is still a part of said village. The contract for the work on the streets was let to John Dolese and Jason H. Shephard. The work, amounting to $600, was satisfactorily performed, the claim properly audited, and certified as correct, and, by order of the board of trustees, a warrant for the amount was drawn on the village treasurer, signed by the village clerk, and only wanted the signature of Daniel A. Pierce, the president of the board of trustees, to make it a valid voucher for the payment of the claim, provided the village of Hyde Park, as claimed by it, is unaffected by such annexation proceedings. The president refused to sign the voucher, on the sole ground that the streets on which the work was done were not within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of the village of Hyde Park, and that said village consequently had no power or authority to incur the indebtedness in question. The contractors, Dolese and Shephard, thereupon filed a petition for a mandamus, in the superior court of Cook county, against Pierce to compel him to sign said warrant on the treasurer. The superior court, on demurrer to the petition, held it insufficient, and entered an order dismissing the same at the petitioner's costs, from which order the present appeal is prosecuted. After perfecting the appeal in this court, a motion was filed therein to dismiss the suit on the ground that it had been collusively brought, and was not being prosecuted in good faith. This motion was reserved for the hearing of the cause on its merits. We do not think that the proofs offered in support of the motion are sufficient to sustain it, and it must, therefore, be overruled.
The main question to be considered is the validity of that part of the act of 1887, under and by virtue of which it is claimed that the greater part of the village of Hyde Park, with all its property and improvements, has been transferred to, and made a part of, the city of Chicago. There are other grave and important questions presented by the record, but in the view we have taken of the one stated it will not be necessary to notice them. Section 13, art. 4, of the present constitution, among other things, provides that ‘no act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in its title; but, if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in its title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.’ It is earnestly insisted by appellants that the act of 1887, in so far as it attempts to deal with cities or villages, limiting or extending their territorial boundaries and jurisdiction, is obnoxious to this provision of the constitution; that the legislature, in attempting to accomplish these objects, has introduced into the act a distinct, independent subject, which is neither embraced in its title, nor germane to that which is embraced in it. After a very careful examination of the act, and all the authorities cited in the briefs, besides many others not referred to by counsel, we feel constrained to hold, as we do, that the act of 1887 is, in the respects stated, unconstitutional and void....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coffin
... ... etc. Ins. Co., 82 Ill. 565; People v ... Hazlewood, 116 Ill. 327, 6 N.E. 480; Leach v ... People, 122 Ill. 421, 12 N.E. 726; Dolese v ... Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, 16 N.E. 218; Dorsey's Appeal, ... 72 Pa. 192; Moses v. Mayor, 52 Ala. 198; Davis ... v. State, 7 Md. 160, 61 Am ... ...
-
Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., 96
...Co. v. City of Chelsea, 1 Cir., 149 F.2d 927, 929; Pottawatomie County v. Alexander, 68 Okl. 126, 172 P. 436, 437-438; Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, 16 N.E. 218; State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 321 Mo. 1126, 14 S.W.2d 990, 1002. 20 The reports are set out in an appendix to the dissenting opi......
-
Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
...genius of our system of government, and its safeguarding is this Court's “highest duty and most sacred function.” Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, 16 N.E. 218, 221 (1888). Our constitution expressly limits the powers of the three coequal branches, and is at its apex when the people have acce......
-
Bond v. Phelps
... ... necessary to effectuate a change of the former, or at least ... to promote such object. Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill ... 140, 16 N.E. 218, 220.' ... And ... said the Court in City of Chicago v. Reeves, 220 ... Ill. 274, ... ...