Kisselberg v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 23 June 1904
• Citation: 210 Ill. 479,71 N.E. 400
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. KISSELBERG v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

210 Ill. 479

71 N.E. 400

PEOPLE ex rel. KISSELBERG

v.CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1904.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Mandamus by the people, on relation of M. S. Kisselberg, against the city of Chicago and others, to compel relator's reinstatement as sergeant of police.From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, affirmed by the Appellate Court(104 Ill. App. 250), relator appeals.Affirmed.

On August 7, 1900, appellant filed his petition in the circuit court of Cook county for a writ of mandamus directed to the city of Chicago, Carter H. Harrison, as mayor thereof, Joseph Kipley, superintendent of police, and John W. Ela and others, civil service commissioners, commanding them to place the name of appellant upon the pay roll of the department of police of said city as sergeant of police, and to command the said civil service commissioners to certify his name upon the pay rolls for payment, and to restore him to the classified civil service as sergeant of police.

Appellant alleges that the city of Chicago is organized under the general laws as a city; that the General Assembly of 1895 passed an act entitled ‘An act to regulate the civil service of cities'; that said act became operative March 20, 1895(Laws 1895, p. 85); that it was adopted by said city by a vote of the people, and that the mayor made proclamation thereof; that a civil service commission was appointed thereunder on July 1, 1895; that it was the duty of said civil service commission to classify all offices and places of employment in said city, and that when so classified they constituted the civil service of said city; that in April, 1897, Joseph Kipley was by the mayor appointed chief of police, and is still acting; that more than 10 years prior to July 1, 1895, appellant was a citizen of Chicago over 21 years of age, and a qualified elector of said city, and on the latter date was desk sergeant or sergeant in the police department in said city-one of the offices and places of employment classified in the civil service by said commission-and was holding said position at the time of the adoption of the civil service act by said city, and could not be removed except for cause, based upon written charges, after an opportunity to be heard; that on July 1, 1897, said Joseph Kipley did, without authority of law and without written charges, remove appellant's name from the pay roll as a sergeant without his consent, and October 9, 1897, said Kipley, without authority of law, against the will of appellant, without cause, and without opportunity to be heard, discharged and separated appellant from the police department by general order No. 32, and removed appellant's name from the pay roll; that in March, 1897, at a promotional examination, appellant passed such examination with more...