Lane v. Lindblom
| Decision Date | 17 April 1905 |
| Citation | 74 N.E. 73,215 Ill. 58 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. LANE v. LINDBLOM et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Appellate Court, First District.
Mandamus by the people, on the relation of Patrick Lane, against Robert Lindblom and others, as civil service commissioners for the city of Chicago, to compel respondents to restore relator to his position on the police force. From a judgment of the Appellate Court reversing a judgment for relator, he appeals. Affirmed.Victor M. Harding, for plaintiff in error.
Michael F. Sullivan, Asst. Corp. Counsel (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for defendants in error.
The circuit court of Cook county entered a judgment awarding to Patrick Lane a writ of mandamus commanding the civil service commission for the city of Chicago to restore his name to the register of eligible candidates for the police force of said city, to reinstate him on said police force, and to certify him to the next vacancy for which he would be eligible. The Appellate Court for the First District reversed the judgment, and did not remand the cause. The writ of error in this case was sued out to review the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court did not incorporate in its judgment any finding of fact, and therefore it is presumed that the facts concerning the matters in controversy were found the same in that court as in the circuit court. Looking at the pleadings, it appears no issue of fact was made by them, and that there was no matter of fact in controversy by virtue of the pleadings. The petition alleged that the relator, Patrick Lane, on October 4, 1900, was a resident of the city of Chicago, and qualified to serve as a police officer; that the civil service law was in force in said city, and the defendants were the civil service commission; that relator had passed his examination, and had been appointed, and was acting as a police officer, and that by order of said commission he was removed and dismissed from the force, and his name was stricken from the register of eligibles for future positions on said force provided for by said civil service act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, p. 542, c. 34) and the rules of said commission; that he was not removed or discharged for cause; that no written charges were preferred against him, and no opportunity was given him to be heard in his own defense; that the charges against him were never investigated by the commission; that he still had the necessary qualifications to serve upon the police force; and that he was improperly removed and his name stricken from the list and the register of eligible candidates in violation of the civil service law. The answer of the defendants admitted the adoption of the civil service law by the city of Chicago and the establishment of a civil service commission in said city, and that they were the commissioners, and had adopted rules as alleged in the petition. The answer also admitted that the defendants, as the civil service commission for said city, ordered the relator discharged from the police force, and struck his name from the register of eligibles, but set up facts in justification of their action, which showed that such action was proper and justifiable and in accordance with the civil service act and the rules of the commission. The facts so alleged were that prior to September 21, 1900, the relator made application to the commission for examination as patrolman on the police force under and by virtue of the civil service act and the rules of the commission; that at the time of making said application it was provided by said rules that every applicant for a position on the uniformed police force must be, at the time of such application, between the ages of 21 and 35 years; that the relator stated in his application that he was born in 1864, and that said statement was untrue; that he was in fact more than 35 years old; that he passed the examination, and was placed upon the eligible list, and was certified to the general superintendent of police for employment as a patrolman; that afterwards charges in writing were preferred against him, and a hearing was set for Thursday, September 27, 1900; that on that day relator failed to appear, but sent a communication to the commission, in which he admitted that he was born in 1858, instead of 1864, as stated in his application; that it was then ordered that the hearing be continued until October 4, 1900, and relator notified to appear before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...... appointment of an ineligible person is an absolute nullity. (29 Cyc. 1374; People v. Lindblom, 215 Ill. 58, 74. N.E. 73; People v. Platt, 117 N.Y. 159, 22 N.E. 937;. State v. Aldermen of Pierce City, 91 Mo. 445, 3 S.W. 849.). . . ...State, 26 Ariz. 334, 225. P. 482; note, 4 Ann. Cas. 760; State v. Smith, 127. Iowa 534, 4 Ann. Cas. 758, 103 N.W. [41 Idaho 631] 944;. Lane v. Butler, 225 Ill.App. 382; People v. Klein, 305 Ill. 141, 137 N.E. 145; Rawlings v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 401, 230 S.W. 529; Terrell v. ......
-
Hinchliffe v. Wenig Teaming Co.
......Dixon, 3 Scam. 115;Armstrong v. Mock, 17 Ill. 166;Kelsey v. Lamb, 21 Ill. 559;Stumps v. Kelley, 22 Ill. 140;People v. Lindblom, 215 Ill. 58, 74 N. E. 73. It has been held, also, that where the representatives of a deceased party to the action are made parties on motion, it is ......
-
Callis v. Brown
...... the oath of office, and execute the bond prescribed by. law." See 46 C.J. p. 950, Sec. 60. People ex rel. Lane v. Lindblom, 215 Ill. 58, 74 N.E. 73. . . The. statute provides that members of the police force. "otherwise qualified under ......
-
Callis, Mayor, v. Brown
......p. 950, Section 60. People ex rel. Lane v. Lindblom, 215 Ill. 58, 74 N. E. 73. The statute provides that members of the police force "otherwise qualified under this law ......