Miller v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8658,70 Ill. 659 |
| Parties | MARTIN B. MILLER et al.v.JEREMIAH GOODWIN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. SILVANUS WILCOX, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Jeremiah Goodwin and a number of other tax-payers of Aurora township, in Kane county, against Martin B. Miller, collector of that township, and Henry C. Paddock, county treasurer of Kane county, to restrain the collection of a tax levied to pay interest and a portion of the principal of $10,000 in bonds, issued by the town of Aurora on a subscription to the capital stock of the Ottawa, Oswego and Fox River Valley Railroad Company. The opinion of the court states the grounds upon which the relief was granted.
Messrs. ELDRIDGE & LEWIS, and Mr. B. F. PARKS, for the appellants.
Mr. S. W. BROWN, for the appellees.
In Ryan v. Lynch et al. 68 Ill. 160, we held, on the evidence then before us, that the purported act entitled “An act authorizing certain cities, counties, incorporated towns and townships, to subscribe to the stock of certain railroads,” approved February 18, 1857, (Public Laws of 1857, p. 225,) was not passed by the Senate in conformity with section 2, article 3, of the constitution of 1848, and was, therefore, not a law. The evidence upon which we came to that conclusion was, a transcript of the Senate journal, certified by the Secretary of State, in proper form. The same evidence is before us in the present case, but there is also evidence introduced by appellants for the purpose of impeaching this transcript, now before us, and our first inquiry must be as to the effect of that evidence.
It is shown, by the evidence, that the minutes of the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1857 were taken down by the proper officers of the respective houses, on sheets composed of blanks, prepared for conveniently taking the “ayes” and “noes,” on “cap” paper, which were fastened together at the end of each day's proceedings, and subsequently deposited with the Secretary of State. These the Secretary caused to be copied, in regular and proper order, in a bound volume prepared and kept in his office for that purpose, which was called “the journal record.” When the minutes were thus copied, they were sent to the public printer, and they were never returned. The transcript in evidence is of “the journal record,” in the Secretary's office, and not of the original minutes prepared by the officers of the General Assembly. It is insisted that the transcript of the minutes alone, is admissible as evidence.
The provision in the constitution of 1848, requiring each house to keep and publish a journal of its proceedings, is precisely the same as that of the constitution of 1818. The constitutional mandate is simply that, “each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and publish the same.” The requirement, that any evidence of such journal shall be kept in the office of the Secretary of State, as well as when and how evidence of the same, admissible in courts of justice, shall be obtained, is merely a statutory regulation.
It was provided, by section 3, chapter 84, Rev. Stats. of 1845, that the journal of each house of the General Assembly shall be kept in well bound books; and, by sections 5 and 8, chapter 96, of the same statutes, they were required to be deposited with the Secretary of State.
By section 3 of “An act to provide for copying and distributing the laws and journals, and for other purposes,” in force February 12, 1849, (Laws of 1849, p. 95,) the Secretary of State is required, within thirty days previous to the meeting of any future General Assembly, to advertise for proposals for copying the laws, joint resolutions and journals of the General Assembly. And, by section 4 of the same act, he is required to furnish a well bound book, in which the journals shall be copied. These sections are in pari materia with the preceding sections referred to of the Revised Statutes of 1845, and they must be construed together....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koehler v. Hill
...... plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals. . . Smith. McPherson, Attorney-general, Peter A. Boyle, William E. Miller, J. A. Harvey, James F. Wilson, C. C. Nourse, John F. Duncombe and Liston McMillan, for appellant. . . Bills & Block and ...721,. contains reasoning, and probably facts, which bring it within. the class last named. . . . Miller v. Goodwin , 70 Ill. 659, has no bearing upon. the question in hand. It simply holds that certified . copies of [60 Iowa 593] the journals may be admitted ......
-
Mosher v. Rogers
......Ross, 57 Ill. 121. All contracts to promote the exercise of unauthorized powers are void, as being against public policy: Miller v. Goodwin, 70 Ill. 659; City of Alton v. Ins. Co. 75 Ill. 566; People v. Dupuyt, 71 Ill. 651; Metropolitan Bank v. Godfrey, 23 Ill. 604; People v. ......
-
Egan v. City of Chicago.
......Larne, 23 How. 435. The officers of a corporation cannot bind it by contract beyond the scope of its corporate powers: Miller v. Goodwin, 70 Ill. 659; City of Alton v. Ætna Ins. Co. 82 Ill. 45. Every one who deals with a municipal corporation must see that it ......
-
Town of Aurora v. Chicago
......Lynch, 68 Ill. 160, again at September term, 1872, in Miller v. Goodwin, 70 Ill. 659, and the bonds were held illegal and void by the Supreme Court of the United States in Post v. Supervisor, 94 United States, ......