McGurn v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 14 May 1890
• Citation: 133 Ill. 122,24 N.E. 529
• Parties: McGURN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

133 Ill. 122

24 N.E. 529

McGURN

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHICAGO.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 14, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county.

Bill by Peter McGurn against the board of education of the city of Chicago, to restrain the defendants from exercising jurisdiction over the affairs of a certain school-district in the town of Lake and the village of Hyde Park. The circuit court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the complainant appeals.

Edward Maher, for appellant.

Joseph B. Leake, for appellees.

BAILEY, J.

The main propositions urged by the appellant in support of the equity of his bill are- First, that the provisions of the statute under which the village of Hyde Park and the town of Lake have been annexed to the city of Chicago, even if valid, do not vest the board of education of the city of Chicago with the control of the common schools in the school-districts heretofore existing in the annexed territory; and, second, that said statute, so far as it applies to the common schools and school property in the annexed territory, is unconstitutional and void. While the bill does not, in terms, admit the regularity and sufficiency of the proceedings by which the annexation was effected, it raises no controversy on that question; and therefore, for all the purposes of this discussion, it will be assumed that, in the election and other proceedings which resulted in the annexation of Hyde Park and Lake to Chicago, all the requirements of the statute were duly observed.

In considering the first of the two propositions above stated, it should be noticed that the appellant counsel in his brief admits-as, indeed, in view of the provisions of the statute he was compelled to do-that said provisions are sufficient to vest in the city of Chicago the legal title to the school property of the several districts within the annexed territory; his contention, so far as this branch of the case is concerned, being that, while the statute vests the legal title in the city, it leaves the beneficial interest in the districts, and also leaves the supervision, control, and management of the schools themselves in the district authorities, in all respects as heretofore. The statute, after fixing the mode and prescribing in detail the proceedings by which an incorporated city, town, or village, or a portion of its territory, may become annexed to an adjoiningincorporated city, town, or village, provides, in section 4, that the city, village, or incorporated town, to which the whole of another city, village, or incorporated town is annexed, shall assume and pay any and all debts, liabilities, bonds, or obligations of the city, incorporated town, or village so annexed, and shall become vested with the title and ownership of all property belonging to the annexed city, incorporated town, or village, to be held for the same purposes, and to the same uses, and subject to the same conditions, as theretofore; and it also provides as follows: ‘If the public schools of such enlarged city, village, or incorporated town are all in charge and under the control of one board of education, the said enlarged city, village, or incorporated town shall assume and pay the indebtedness of each school-district or township lying wholly therein, and shall become vested with the title and ownership of all property belonging to any school-district or township lying wholly therein, to be held for the same purposes and to the same uses, and subject to the same conditions, as theretofore.’ Laws 1889, p. 70. In section 8, similar provisions are made for the payment of school indebtedness, and the transfer to the corporation to which the annexation is made of the school property, where but a part of a city, incorporated town, or village is annexed, and where the entire school-district or township is included in the annexed territory, and for an equitable apportionment of the indebtedness and property, where but part of a school-district or township is annexed.

It must be admitted that in this legislation there is no affirmative provision by which the school-districts in the annexed territory are dissolved, and the control and management of the public schools in such districts transferred to the board of education of the enlarged municipality. But, as applied to the city of Chicago, where, under the existing school system, all the public schools of the city are by law placed in charge and under the control of one board of education, it contains a clear recognition of said system, and makes every necessary provision which the law has not already made for a proper adjustment to it of the schools and school property in the annexed territory. It provides for the payment of the school indebtedness, and the transfer to the city of the school property,-matters which were not provided for by laws already in force,-leaving all other matters to be disposed of in accordance with the ample provisions already made by existing legislation.

The annexation of territory to a municipality does not carry with it the necessity of formulating a code of municipal law for the government of the territory annexed. By becoming a part of the municipality, it is ipso facto brought under and made subject to all the laws by which the municipality itself is governed. Those laws extend over and apply to it ex proprio vigore, and do not require express legislative action to give them such application. Here, the instant the territory in question became annexed to Chicago, it became a constituent part of the city, and from that instant became subject to the same laws, the same municipal organization, and the same polity which the statutes in force had already provided for the government of the city and its institutions. The statutes already in force having committed all the public schools of the city to the control and management of the city board of education, the instant the territory in question became a part of the city, all public schools within that territory fell under the jurisdiction of said board, not by force of any express provision of the annexation law, but by force of the existing statute, which had committed all schools in the city to the jurisdiction of said board. The various statutes of the state in relation to public schools were revised and codified by the ‘act to establish and maintain a system of free schools,’ approved and in force May 21, 1889, and, as that act embodied the school law as it existed at the time the annexation in question took place, it will be unnecessary for us to refer to prior legislation. Those portions of the act material to the question under discussion are...