Mccormick v. West Chicago Park Com'rs.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1886
• Citation: Mccormick v. West Chicago Park Com'rs., 118 Ill. 655, 8 N.E. 818 (Ill. 1886)
• Parties: McCORMICK and others.v.WEST CHICAGO PARK COM'RS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

118 Ill. 655

8 N.E. 818

McCORMICK and others.

v.WEST CHICAGO PARK COM'RS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 13, 1886.

Error to county court, Cook county.

The intervening petition of Patrick Flaherty, and the petition of the defendant in error thereon, raise a question of title to land of the value of $2,221.29. The county court of Cook county is a court of limited jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction to determine questions of title to land. It has no equity jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction where the amount claimed, or the value of the property, is over $1,000. If the court can order into its custody the compensation awarded in the condemnation proceedings, it may take possession of funds which it has no jurisdiction over, or power to distribute. To order that the money be paid into the hands of the county treasurer is as far as the court is authorized to go. Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. Prussing, 96 Ill. 203; South Park Com'rs v. Todd, 112 Ill. 379.

The county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in matters of eminent domain, (chapter 47, Ill. St. 1885,) and therefore had the right to order the money into its own hands. In adjudicating upon the class of questions within their jurisdiction, their powers will be as liberally construed as those of the circuit courts. Bostwick v. Skinner, 80 Ill. 147; Propst v. Meadows, 13 Ill. 157; Housh v. People, 66 Ill. 178; Von Kettler v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109; Barnett v. Wolf, 70 Ill. 76; Magill v. Brown, 98 Ill. 235; People v. Stacey, 11 Bradw. 506; Westbay v. Williams, 5 Bradw. 521; Hanchett v. Waterbury, 115 Ill. 220; S. C. 6 N. E. Rep. 23; Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa, 77.

When a court once obtains jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues in all powers required to give it full effect until the end of the law shall be attained. Mason v. Thomas, 24 Ill. 285; People v. Barr, 22 Ill. 241; Jenkins v. Simms, 45 Md. 540.

The statute directing payment to the county treasurer is mandatory. Kane v. Footh, 70 Ill. 587; School-district v. Sterricker, 86 Ill. 595.

The order to pay the money into court, subject to the order of the court, is not a final order.

The county court, in matters of eminent domain, has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court. Starr & C. St. 1885, c. 47, § 18. In this respect its jurisdiction is as general as that of the circuit court, and as liberal presumptions will be made in its favor as are given to courts of general jurisdiction. Propst v. Meadows, 13 Ill. 157; Von Kettler v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109; Housh v. People, 66 Ill. 178; Bostwick v. Skinner, 80 Ill. 147; Magill v. Brown, 98 Ill. 235; Barnett v. Wolf, 70 Ill. 76; Westbay v. Williams, 5 Bradw. 521; People v. Stacey, 11 Bradw. 506; Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa, 77; Hanchett v. Waterbury, 115 Ill. 220; S. C. 6 N. E. Rep. 23.

The provision that payment of compensation may be made to the county treasurer is directory merely. Schuyler Co. v. Mercer Co., 4 Gilman, 20; Kane v. Footh, 70 Ill. 587; Fowler v. Pirkins, 77 Ill. 271; School-district v. Sterricker, 86 Ill. 595.

When jurisdiction has once attached, it continues, and all powers requisite to give it full and complete effect can be exercised until the end of the law shall have been attained. People v. Barr, 22 Ill. 241; Watson v. Reissig, 24 Ill. 281; Mason v. Thomas, 24 Ill. 285; Worsham v. Richards, 46 Tex. 441; Jenkins v. Simms, 45 Md. 533; Berard v. Young, 26 La. Ann. 598. The order directing the money to be paid into court is a mere interlocutory order, making no disposition of the fund, which cannot be done until the rights of the parties are determined. Young v. Matthieson & Hegeler Zince Co., 105 Ill. 26; Racine & M. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 70 Ill. 249; Gage v. Eich, 56 Ill. 297; Woodside v. Woodside, 21 Ill. 207.

The payment into court is not an adjudication of the rights of either party. Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. Prussing, 96 Ill. 203. The writ of error should have been sued out of the appellate court. John N. Jewett and Jewett Bros., for plaintiffs in error.

William E. Mason, for defendants in error.

J. D. Addir, for intervening petitioners, Lorin C. Collins, Jr., and Patrick Flaherty.

MAGRUDER, J.

In May, 1881, the West Chicago park commissioners filed a petition in the county court of Cook county to condemn certain land owned by plaintiffs in error, in S. W. 4/1 section 30, township 39 N., range 14 E., in Cook county, for the purpose of locating and establishing a boulevard, 250 feet wide, running from the south end of Douglas park to the Illinois & Michigan canal. On November 29, 1882, the jury returned a verdict ‘that the owners and parties interested therein, being Cyrus H. McCormick,’ (who has since deceased, and whose executors are Nettie Fowler McCormick and Cyrus H. McCormick, Jr.,) Leander J. McCormick, and Alpheus C. Badger, are entitled to the sum of $6,657.60, the value of the land taken, in full compensation for the same.' On the same day, to-wit, November 29, 1882, the court entered the following judgment: ‘The court having heard the motion of the petitioner herein that judgment be entered upon the verdict hereinbefore rendered against the following described pieces or parcels of land, and being fully advised in the premises, doth thereupon order, adjudge, and decree that, upon the petitioner, said West Chicago park commissioners, paying to the owner or owners-viz., Cyrus H. McCormick, Leander J. McCormick, and Alpheus C. Badger-of [here follows description of the property] the sum of $6,657.60, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum from this date, the petitioner be let into the possession thereof.’

The petition for condemnation was filed against many other owners besides the McCormicks, and the proceeding was entitled ‘ The West Chicago Park Commissioners v. The Western Union Telegraph Company et al.’ On March 29, 1886, Patrick Flaherty and Lorin C. Collins, Jr., filed therein a petition, setting up all the proceedings in the original case, including the verdict and judgment aforesaid, and alleging that, when such proceedings were brgun, Flaherty owned a portion of the premises, but was not made a party to the original petition, and had no notice thereof, or of any of the steps taken thereunder; that on September 29, 1883, he conveyed an undivided half of said premises to Collins; that the judgment and finding are invalid against the petitioners; that the park commissioners have not yet paid the amount of the finding, and have not yet taken possession of the premises, but that the money is in their hands; and that Flaherty is entitled to receive therefrom $2,221.29 as compensation for the portion of the property taken that was owned by him; that he accepts the finding and judgment thereon as to the value of the premises, and no further; and praying that a rule be entered against the McCormicks and Badger and one Day to show cause why $2,221.29, in the hands of the commissioners, should not be paid to the petitioners. The park commissioners answered, admitting the allegations of the petition, and that, since the judgment above set forth, the portion of the premises claimed by Flaherty had been decided by the supreme court to be his property, and asking that they be allowed to pay the money due from them into court, and be released from responsibility, and that the court direct the payment of the money. The McCormicks and Day moved to dismiss the petition for a number of reasons; the main one being a want of jurisdiction in the court over the parties and the subject-matter. These reasons, as one of the counsel states, ‘were deemed untenable.’

On May 15, 1886, Flaherty and Collins filed therein an amended petition, making substantially the same allegations as were made in their petition of March 29, 1886, except that they allege the death of Cyrus H. McCormick, and the appointment of his executors, and also the execution, some time in 1885, of a deed by Leander J. McCormick and the said executors, conveying the property in question to Henry Day, of New York. The prayer of this amended petition was that the McCormicks and Day should be ruled to show ‘whether they have any interest in said moneys, and that they and said commissioners show cause * * * why said $2,221.19, with interest, should not be paid to petitioners, and, in case the money is paid into court, that said rule be discharged as to the commissioners.’ On May 15, 1886, the park commissioners also filed in said proceeding what is called an intervening petition, entitled ‘In the condemnation case of West Chicago Park Commissioners v. The Western Union Telegraph Company et al.;’ therein alleging that they were the petitioners in the original proceeding; that the sum of about $6,000 was awarded to C. H. and L. J. McCormick, which has not been paid; that Flaherty had filed his intervening petition therein, claiming to own part of the premises, and seeking his pro rata share of the judgment; that they have money enough to pay the judgment; that they do not wish to enter into the controversy between Flaherty and the McCormicks, but desire to stop the running of interest; and therein praying that an order be entered ‘directing the commissioners to pay, within ten days, into this [county] court, the money due in the condemnation proceedings on...