Dunderdale v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 22 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 17445.,17445.
• Citation: 158 N.E. 424,327 Ill. 62
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DUNDERDALE v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

327 Ill. 62

158 N.E. 424

PEOPLE ex rel. DUNDERDALE

v.CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

No. 17445.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 22, 1927.

Error to Third Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Emanuel Eller, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of William S. Dunderdale, for mandamus to be directed to the City of Chicago and others. To review a judgment affirming a judgment for the relator, defendants bring certiorari.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Francis X. Busch, Corp. Counsel, and Francis J. Vurpillat, both of Chicago (Cora B. Hirtzel, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

A. D. Gash, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

STONE, J.

On December 16, 1924, defendant in error William S. Dunderdale, filed a petition in the superior court of Cook county praying for a writ of mandamus directed to the city of Chicago and the president of the board of local improvements to reinstate him as paving inspector and to pay him certain amounts as salary. Plaintiffs in error filed a demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was overruled, and, plaintiffs in error electing to abide their demurrer, the writ of mandamus was awarded and they were directed to reinstate defendant in error and pay him his salary, at the rate of $2,100 per annum, for the periods from May 18, 1924, to August 22, 1924, from September 4, 1924, to December 5, 1924, and from December 6, 1924, to the date of the order, amounting in all to $1,000. An appeal was taken by plaintiffs in error to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the superior court of Cook county was affirmed, and the cause comes here on a writ of certiorari.

The petition avers that on November 10, 1914, the petitioner took the civil service examination for the ‘office or position’ of paving inspector in the city of Chicago; that he passed the examination and became entitled to be posted on the eligible register for ‘said office’; that his name was posted on the eligible register by the civil service commission for said ‘office or position’; that on September 13, 1915, he was duly appointed to the ‘office or position’ of paving inspector, and remained, and still remains, in said ‘office or position’; that on February 1, 1924, there was appropriated by the city council of the city of Chicago in its annual appropriation bill $2,100 for said ‘position or office,’ payable at the rate of $83.33 bimonthly after deducting the amount due the pension fund; that from May 8, 1924, to August 22, 1924, from September 4, 1924, to December 5, 1924, and from December 6, 1924, to the date of the petition, without any fault on the part of the petitioner, he was not permitted to work in said ‘office or position’ of paving inspector; that he was not laid off for lack of work or other good cause; that many other paving inspectors junior to him upon the civil service register were retained and paid the salaries for said periods; that during the time in question he was willing and able to do the work of the ‘position,’ except that from May 20, 1924, to July 3, 1924, owing to a sprained ankle, he was under the care of a physician and not permitted to stand or walk on the injured foot; that he notified John B. Hittel, chief street engineer, his immediate superior, and John J. Sloan, president of the board of local improvements, of his illness; that on June 25, 1924, charges were preferred and filed before the civil service commission charging him with being absent without leave from May 17, 1924, to June 25, 1924; that he was notified of said charges; that the matter came on for hearing before the civil service commission, and on July 23, 1924, the commission entered an order that the evidence in support of the charges was insufficient to warrant his removal, and recommended that he be penalized by the loss of salary for 30 days' suspension.

The petitioner further states in his petition that on August 22, 1924, he was permitted to resume his work, but was again suspended on September 4, 1924, for 30 days; that certain charges preferred on October 8, 1924, were mailed to him at 344 North Lockwood avenue, a place where he had not lived since April 24; that he at that time lived at 618 Dole avenue and had notified the respondents of the change of his address; that he did not receive the charges of October 8, 1924; that the respondents have systematically since September 4, 1924, filed charges each 30 days and suspended him for 30 days at each of said hearings, contrary to the Civil Service Law (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 24 1/2); that afterwards, on November 7, 1924, he was again charged before the civil service commission, which charge was as follows: ‘Charges suspension for 30 days by order of civil service commission and ordered to report for duty on November 4, 1924; failed to report on November 4, 1924, and has not reported since, either by person or by telephone’; that a copy of those charges was served upon him and he was notified to...