Galpin v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 07 October 1915
• Docket Number: No. 9854.,9854.
• Citation: 269 Ill. 27,109 N.E. 713
• Parties: GALPIN v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

269 Ill. 27

109 N.E. 713

GALPIN

v.CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

No. 9854.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 24, 1915.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge.

Interpleader by Homer K. Galpin against the City of Chicago and others. From the decree, Elizabeth C. Wayman, administratrix, appeals, and other defendants assign cross-errors. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Thomas Marshall, of Chicago, for appellant.

John W. Beckwith, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (Joseph F. Grossman, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee City of Chicago.

Robert Redfield, of Chicago, for appellees South Park Com'rs.

Francis O'Shaughnessy, of Chicago, for appellees Lincoln Park Com'rs.

Jacob C. Le Bosky, of Chicago, for appellees West Chicago Park Com'rs.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen.

(Thomas J. O'Hare, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees' Boards of Pharmacy, Dental Examiners, and Commissioners of Labor.

Carl R. Chindblom, and John P. Barnes, both of Chicago, for appellee Cook County.

Wm. F. Struckmann and Walter E. Moss, both of Chicago, for appellee Tobin.

Howard W. Hayes, of Chicago, for appellees trustees of the several pension funds.

Henry P. Chandler and M. H. Gladstone, both of Chicago, for other appellees.

COOKE, J.

On December 13, 1912, Homer K. Galpin filed in the circuit court of Cook county his bill of interpleader, alleging that in November, 1906, he was elected clerk of the municipal court of Chicago and held that office until December 2, 1912; that during the four-year period beginning December 6, 1908, and ending December 1, 1912, the fines and penalties paid to him by persons convicted of violating various statutes and park ordinances particularly mentioned in the bill aggregated the sum of $191,206.50, and that he has received interest amounting to $5,998.10 on said fund and $5,272.30 as interest on funds other than those above mentioned; that John E. W. Wayman, who was state's attorney of Cook county during the said four-year period, the county of Cook, and the superintendent of schools of Cook county are each claiming the entire fund, and the city of Chicago, the South Park commissioners, the commissioners of Lincoln Park, the West Chicago Park commissioners, the North Shore Park district, the Ridge Avenue Park district, the state board of pharmacy, the Illinois state board of dental examiners, the state board of commissioners of labor, E. A. Rust, Charles Hagenbucher, Christ Heiser, Joseph Obornij, and Matt A. Berkholz are each claiming specific portions of said fund; that complainant has always been, and is now, willing to pay the amounts collected by him as such clerk, and interest accrued thereon, to the person or persons lawfully entitled to the same, but is, by reason of the various conflicting claims aforesaid, uncertain as to the proper distribution of the fund. All of said claimants were made defendants to the bill, which prayed that they be required to interplead and settle and adjust their demands among themselves.

All of the defendants, except Rust, Hagenbucher, Heiser, Obornij, and Berkholz, who were deputy game wardens and whose interests, if any, in the fund are insignificant, answered the bill, setting up their various claims to the fund or to portions thereof. The boards of trustees of various police pension funds filed an intervening petition, praying that they be made defendants and be permitted to set up, by way of answer, their claims to portions of the fund. The prayer of the petition was granted, and answers were filed by the respective boards of trustees of the police pension funds. Hale Gossart also filed an intervening petition praying to be made a party defendant and claiming $75 of the fund.

On September 15, 1913, the death of John E. W. Wayman was suggested, and Elizabeth C. Wayman, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted as a defendant in his stead. Thereafter the court entered an order allowing the complainant to retain out of the fund in his hands $1,049.85 on account of costs and expenses incurred by him in filing the bill of interpleader, and directing him to pay the balance, amounting to $201,427.05, to the clerk of the circuit court, which was accordingly done and the complainant was dismissed from the suit.

The cause was heard by the chancellor upon a stipulation of facts, and a decree was entered finding that the defendant Hale Gossart is entitled to $75 of said fund, that the city of Chicago is entitled to $5,272.32 of said fund, and that the county of Cook is entitled to the balance of said fund, and directing the clerk to distribute the fund among said parties in the proportions in which they are entitled to the same as found by the decree. From that decree Elizabeth C. Wayman, as administratrix, has prosecuted this appeal, and various of the defendants who were found to have no interest in the fund, and the city of Chicago, have assigned cross-errors.

No complaint is made by any of the parties of that portion of the decree which awards to Gossart $75 and to the city of Chicago $5,272.32 of the fund. The controversy here is over the proper distribution of the remainder of the fund, amounting to $196,079.73.

The Wayman estate claims the entire fund under and by virtue of section 8 of the Fees and Salaries Act and section 239 of the School Law. That portion of said section 8, as amended in 1907, necessary to be here noticed, is as follows:

‘State's attorneys shall also be entitled to the following fees: * * * All the foregoing fees shall be taxed as costs to be collected from the defendant, if possible, upon conviction. But in cases of inquiry into the sanity or insanity of any person alleged to be insane, in cases on a charge of bastardy and in case of appeal or writ of error in the Supreme or Appellate Court, where judgment is in favor of the accused, the fees allowed the state's attorney therein shall be retained out of the fines and forfeitures collected by them in other cases. Ten per cent. of all moneys, except revenue, collected by them and paid over to the authorities entitled thereto, which per cent., together with the fees provided for herein that are not collected from the parties tried or examined, shall be paid out of any fines and forfeited recognizances collected by them. State's attorneys shall have a lien for their fees on moneys except revenue received by them until such fees and earnings are fully paid.’ Laws of 1907, p. 329.

Section 239 of the School Law of 1909 reads as follows:

‘It shall be the duty of the state's attorneys of the several counties to enforce the collection of all fines, forfeitures and penalties imposed or incurred in the courts of record of their respective counties, and to pay the same to the county superintendent of the county wherein the same have been imposed or incurred, retaining therefrom the fees and commissions allowed them by law.’ Laws of 1909, p. 406.

This provision of the School Law of 1909 is identical with section 2 of article 14 of the School Law of 1889, which was in force when Wayman became state's attorney of Cook county.

The county of Cook claims the entire fund under and by virtue of two acts of the General Assembly approved May 17, 1907, both of which have since been repealed. One of these acts is referred to in this proceeding as House Bill 231 and the other as House Bill 232. House Bill 231 was as follows:

‘Section 1. Be it enacted by the people of the state of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That ‘An act concerning fees and salaries, and to classify the several counties of this state with reference thereto,’ approved March 29, 1872, in force July 1, 1872, title as amended by act approved March 28, 1874, in force July 1, 1874, ‘Act as amended by an act approved May 15, 1903, in force July 1, 1903,’ be and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto section 9a to read as follows:

‘9a. Each state's attorney in counties of the third class, hereafter to be elected, at the end of each and every quarter of the year after entering upon the duties of his office and within ten days after the expiration of his term of office shall pay all fees collected and remaining in his hands into the county treasury of his county.’

Laws of 1907, p. 320.

House Bill 232 read as follows:

‘Section 1. Be it enacted by the people of the state of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That the state's attorney of Cook county shall be paid by the said county, in addition to the salary which may be paid to him from the state treasury, such further compensation as will make his salary amount to the sum of $10,000 per annum, which sum shall be in full payment for all services rendered by him.

‘Sec. 2. The said compensation shall be paid in equal quarterly installments; and it shall be the duty of the county comptroller of said county, at the end of each and every quarter of the year, to draw an order or warrant therefor in favor of the state's attorney on the county treasurer of said county, whose duty it shall be to pay the same on its presentation properly indorsed: Rpovided, that no warrant shall be drawn or money paid unless the state's attorney shall have, for the current quarter, made a report to the commissioners of said county and paid into the county treasury all fees collected by him as state's attorney for said quarter.’

Laws of 1907, p. 323.

The Wayman estate contends that both of these acts were unconstitutional for various reasons, but it will be necessary to consider but one of the grounds urged against each act.

It is contended by the Wayman estate that House Bill 231 violated that portion of section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution which provides that:

‘No law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title only, but the law revived, or the section amended, shall be inserted at length in the new act.’

This provision of the Constitution has been considered in numerous cases decided by this court since the adoption of our present Con...