Lovingston v. Wider

• Decision Date: 31 January 1870
• Citation: Lovingston v. Wider, 53 Ill. 302, 1870 WL 6197 (Ill. 1870)
• Parties: JOHN B. LOVINGSTONv.ERNST W. WIDER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

53 Ill. 302

1870 WL 6197 (Ill.)

JOHN B. LOVINGSTON

v.ERNST W. WIDER et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1870.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

MR. WILLIAM H. UNDERWOOD and Mr. M. MILLARD, for the appellant.

Mr. G. KŒRNER and Mr. G. W. DAVIS, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

On the twenty-second of February, 1867, the legislature passed an act entitled, “an act to establish a police force for the city of East St. Louis,” which provided for the appointment by the governor, with the consent of the senate, of three commissioners, who were to control the police department of the city. The act directed that these commissioners should annually estimate what sum of money would be necessary for each fiscal year, and report to the city council, who are required to appropriate such amount out of the general fund of the city, and in case of the failure of the council so to do, the commissioners are authorized to issue certificates of indebtedness in the name of the city, which shall be receivable in payment of city taxes, and to raise money on said certificates by pledging or disposing of the same. No limit is placed upon their power as to the amount they are thus authorized to raise, or the price at which they shall dispose of the certificates.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, alleging that he is a citizen and tax payer of said city, setting forth the substance of said act, and averring that the city council had refused to recognize the authority of said commissioners, or appropriate money on their requisition, and that they had issued large amounts of said certificates and sold them at twenty cents on the dollar, and were continuing to do so. The bill alleges the unconstitutionality of the law, and prays an injunction against the commissioners, who are made defendants. The cause was heard on a demurrer to the bill, and the demurrer was sustained, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. The complainant appealed.

The validity of this act can hardly be considered an open question in this court, since the decision of The People ex rel. McCagg v. The Mayor of Chicago, 51 Ill. 17; Same ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon, ib. 37; Same ex rel. South Park Commissioners v. The Common Council of Chicago, ib. 58, and Harward v. St. Clair Drainage Company, ib. 130.

We held, in these cases, that the fifth section of the ninth article of the constitution, authorizing the legislature to give the corporate authorities of cities and towns the right of taxation for corporate purposes, was to be construed as a limitation upon the power of the legislature to grant the right of corporate or local taxation to any other persons than the corporate or local authorities. We further held, that, by corporate authorities, as used in this clause of the constitution, must be understood those municipal officers who are either directly elected by the people of the municipality, or appointed in some mode to which they have given their assent. We further held, in the first of the above cited cases, that the commissioners of Lincoln Park were not corporate authorities, and in the last case, that the drainage company were not such authorities within the meaning of the constitution. These cases, in our judgment, are conclusive against the validity of the act under consideration. These police commissioners are not the corporate authorities of East St. Louis, and, therefore, can have no power of taxation. They are...