Hall v. Cook Cnty.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1935
• Docket Number: No. 22718.,22718.
• Citation: 195 N.E. 54,359 Ill. 528
• Parties: HALL v. COOK COUNTY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

359 Ill. 528

195 N.E. 54

HALL

v.COOK COUNTY.

No. 22718.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 15, 1935.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1935.

Action by Eric E. Hall against Cook County. From a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District which affirmed judgment for defendant as amended by circuit court (274 Ill. App. 503), which was transferred from the Supreme Court (353 Ill. 477, 187 N. E. 454), plaintiff appeals.

Judgments of the circuit court and Appellate Court severally reversed, and judgment entered for plaintiff.Appeal from First Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas Taylor, Judge.

Urban A. Lavery, of Chicago (Weightstill Woods, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Hayden N. Bell, and Jacob Shamberg, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

HERRICK, Justice.

The appellant, Eric E. Hall (hereinafter called the plaintiff), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court of Cook county against the board of commissioners of Cook county by which he sought to compel such board to audit and allow his claim in the sum of $187,500 which he had filed against the county. Subsequently, and during the trial of the cause, the plaintiff changed his form of action to assumpsit, and filed his declaration against the county of Cook, appellee herein (hereinafter called the defendant), to recover for the same services for which the original suit was instituted. The declaration consisted of a special count and the common counts. The defendant entered its appearance and filed the plea of general issue. A jury was waived, the cause was tried before the court, and judgment was entered for the defendant. From that judgment, the plaintiff appealed to this court. The cause was transferred to the Appellate Court for the First district. Hall v. County of Cook, 353 Ill. 477, 187 N. E. 454. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 274 Ill. App. 503. The cause comes here on leave to appeal.

The suit is based upon the claim of the plaintiff, as the county architect of Cook county, for services rendered by him in the preparation of certain plans, and work done in connection therewith, for the construction of a civic auditorium of municipal hall for the county. No evidence was offered on behalf of the defendant other than the appropriation bills for the fiscal years 1926, 1927, and 1928.

The evidence in the case shows that the plaintiff was appointed county architect in 1915 by the president of the board of county commissioners with the board's approval. His appointment was made thereafter annually. He served as such county architect from 1915 to and including the year 1932 and was acting in that capacity at the time of the trial in the court below. Each year he filed his bond in the sum of $50,000, conditioned to discharge faithfully the duties of the office of county architect. No ‘salary,’ as that term is commonly used, was ever fixed by the board on commissioners for the plaintiff. On February 28, 1927, the commissioners adopted the following resolution:

‘Resolved, That the office, postition or place of employment of the county architect be and the same is hereby established, created and provided for, and that the rate of compensation shall be as follows: The compensation of the county architect shall be a fee of six per cent (6%) on work under his supervision in accordance with the rules of the American Institute of Architects, said compensation to be paid only on work ordered by the board of commissioners of Cook county or approved by it, provided that all plans and specifications for county work shall become the property of Cook county. The aforesaid compensation shall be divided, one and one-quarter per cent (1 1/4%) for the preliminary studies and sketches, three per cent (3%) for plans, specifications and details, and one and three-quarters per cent (1 3/4%) for supervising and superintending work, and the bills of the county architect shall be divided accordingly.’

This resolution remained in force from the date of its adoption to the time of the trial.

The evidence shows that during the time the plaintiff served as county architect he had charge of the architectural work of all the county buildings constructed or upon which any work was done during the period of his employment. On October 4, 1926, the county board having in view the erection of a civic auditorium to be built at the expense of Cook county, but to be used by both the county and the city of Chicago, adopted a resolution the terms of which, amongst other things, provided that the president of the board was authorized to appoint a committee to study and recommend ways and means for bringing about the construction by the city and Cook county, acting jointly, of a municipal hall. Acting under that resolution, the president of the board appointed a commission of more than 200 persons, citizens of Cook county, which commission was thereafter designated as the civic auditorium commission of Cook county. Later the board adopted other resolutions in furtherance of the plan for the erection of a civic auditorium, conferring definite powers upon the civic auditorium commission, and making the commission agent in certain respects for the board.

An act of the Legislature was passed, approved, and in force June 1, 1927, by which it was provided that any county having a population of 500,000 or over should have power to acquire land for a site for a municipal hall, and to erect such municipal hall, with all necessary adjuncts thereto, from funds realized from the sale of bonds of the county, subject to a referendum vote upon the proposition, and in case the bonds should be authorized by the vote, the county should have the power to maintain, operate, control, and regulate the use of the hall from the general funds of the county. It was further provided that all income from the hall should be kept in a separate fund and should be first applied to the expenses of maintenance. The act also provided that whenever the county board should pass a resolution providing for a referendum vote on the question of issuing the bonds of the county for the purpose of acquiring a site for and the erection of a municipal hall, the question should be submitted at the next general election or at a special election called for that purpose, and that the proposition for the bond issue should be submitted at the June judicial election of 1927 without further notice. The act provided that if it should be deemed necessary to levy taxes in addition to the statutory limitation of 25 cents on the $100 valuation, and also in addition to the constitutional limitation of 75 cents on the $100 valuation, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds as they fell due, the question of additional taxes might be submitted to a vote of the people at the same time and on the same ballot as the question of the issuance of the bonds. Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1927, c. 34, § 147a et seq., Cahill's Rev. St. 1927, c. 34, par. 123(1) et seq. (sections 1 to 7, inc.), p. 749. The act was amended by an act of July 7, 1927. This amendment, however, is not material to any of the issues here.

On June 2, 1927, the board of commissioners adopted a resolution calling an election for June 6, 1927, that being the date of the judicial election, at which election thus called it was provided that there should be submitted to the voters of the county the question of issuing bonds in the principal sum of $15,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring a site for and the erection of a municipal hall, and also that there should be submitted at the same election the question of levying a tax for the purpose of paying the bonds, principal, and interest. The proposition for the issuance of the bonds and the levy of an annual tax to pay them was carried by an affirmative vote of 147,700 as against a negative vote of 87,233. June 15, 1927, the commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing and directing the issuance of bonds in the sum of $15,000,000. On the same date the commissioners adopted another resolution, reciting, in substance, that the civic auditorium commission was functioning and that it was necessary that the committee on requirements, facilities, design, and construction (which was a subcommittee of the civic auditorium commission) complete a survey before the committee on location could function. It was further recited in the resolution that a study must be made of the larger convention halls both from an architectural and personal survey standpoint, and then ordered that the county architect be, and he was thereby, instructed to proceed with the analysis of plans of existing outstanding auditoriums for study by the committee on design and construction. The resolution ordered that a committee made up of 8 members, 3 from the committee on construction and design, the county architect, 3 members of the board of county commissioners to be appointed by the president, and John F. Delaney, representing president Anton J. Cermak, be and they were thereby instructed to proceed with a survey of the outstanding convention halls and to report back to the committee on construction and design, which in turn was to report to the county commissioners. Subsequent to the adoption of this last resolution, a committee consisting of 6 of the leading architects and consulting engineers of Cook county had entered into an arrangement with the county architect for the payment by him of their services in assisting him in and about discharging his duties in the preparation of plans and designs for the auditorium and the superintending of the construction thereof. On August 10, 1927, the county board adopted another resolution, in which it was recited, in substance, that the committee on design and construction of the civic auditorium commission had secured the services of the 6 architects...