Martel v. the City of East St. Louis.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1879 |
| Citation | 1879 WL 8664,94 Ill. 67 |
| Parties | MARTIN MARTELv.THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court of the Fourth District. Mr. R. A. HALBERT, for the appellant.
Messrs. G. & G. A. KŒRNER, for the appellee.
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, in the city of Belleville, to recover a penalty imposed by an ordinance of the city of East St. Louis upon any one who should keep a dram-shop within the limits of such city without having a license so to do. Under the evidence found in the record it is not perceived how the conviction can stand.
Defendant was found guilty of the violation of an ordinance that provides that any person who shall exercise any trade or calling therein required to be licensed without having first obtained a license as therein provided, shall be subject to a fine of not less than $3 nor more than $100 for each and every offence, and on conviction he was fined $3. That defendant had a license to keep a dram-shop in the city of East Louis is conceded, and, under the admissions found in the record to be taken as evidence, the city will not be permitted to deny it was a valid license. On the offer being made to prove certain facts, plaintiff admitted that on the 20th of June, 1878, defendant paid to Winstanly $56.25 for a license to keep a dram-shop in the city of East St. Louis; that Winstanly was then acting as treasurer of the city; that defendant had given bond in the sum of $3000, in due form of law, for the purpose of keeping a dram-shop; that he had received from Sullivan, who was then acting as city clerk, under the seal of the city, a license to keep a dram-shop within the jurisdiction of such city, for a period of nine months from the 20th day of June, 1878, and that the city had never returned to him the money so paid for such license. The license issued to defendant had not expired by limitation, nor had it been revoked when this prosecution was commenced.
Receiving the money paid by defendant was equivalent to an adoption by the city of the acts of the officers who assumed to act on its behalf in the matter of issuing license, and made such acts its own. There is no pretence the city did not receive the benefit of the money paid by defendant for a license to keep a dram-shop,--a city bond for the amount having been surrendered and cancelled,--and the admission is, the city has not “returned” the money to defendant. So long as the city retains defendant's money paid for a license to pursue his trade or calling, with the knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boise City v. Wilkinson
... ... Co. v ... Pullman Palace Co., 139 U.S. 24, 11 S.Ct. 478, 35 L.Ed ... 55; St. Louis Vandalia & Terre Haute R. Co. v. Terre ... Haute & Ind. R. Co., 145 U.S. 393, 12 S.Ct. 953, 36 ... City ... of New Haven , 46 Conn. 257; Logan Co. v. City of ... Lincoln , 81 Ill. 156; Martel v. City of E. St ... Louis , 94 Ill. 67; City of Joliet v. Werner , ... [16 Idaho 178] 166 Ill ... ...
-
Eubank v. City of Edina
...between municipal and private bodies. Society for Savings v. New London, 29 Conn. 192; Railroad v. People, 91 Ill. 251; Martel v. East St. Louis, 94 Ill. 67; Roby v. Chicago, 64 Ill. 447; Railroad v. Joliet, 79 Ill. 39; Logan Co. v. Lincoln, 81 Ill. 156; Curnen v. New York, 79 N. Y. 511; Ca......
-
St. Paul Gaslight Company v. Village of Sandstone
...natural persons or private corporations. Kneeland v. Gilman, 24 Wis. 39; Houfe v. Town, 34 Wis. 608; Chicago v. City, 79 Ill. 25; Martel v. City, 94 Ill. 67; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; Howe Keeler, 27 Conn. 538; Hart v. Stone, 30 Conn. 94; Bigelow, Estop. (4th Ed.) 524 OPINION S......
-
People v. Bradford
...Village of Cahokia, 357 Ill. 538, 192 N.E. 565;Melin v. Community Consolidated School District, 312 Ill. 376, 144 N.E. 13;Martel v. City of East St. Louis, 94 Ill. 67. The rule adopted in the Federal courts, as applied to the government of the United States or the States, concerning the mat......