Minear v. State Bd. of Agric.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1913
• Citation: 259 Ill. 549,102 N.E. 1082
• Parties: MINEAR v. STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

259 Ill. 549

102 N.E. 1082

MINEAR

v.STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; W. B. Scholfield, Judge.

Action by Jesse P. Minear against the State Board of Agriculture. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Sidney S. Breese, of Springfield, Robert A. Holland, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., and John J. Arney, of Casey, for appellant.

S. M. Scholfield and Fred J. Bartlett, both of Marshall, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, as plaintiff in the court below, recovered a judgment against the State Board of Agriculture for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the collapse of certain elevated seats, or bleachers, at the Illinois State Fair on October 4, 1911. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff attended the State Fair on the day named; that the defendant, among other things, had advertised trials of speed to be given on the speedway or race course on the fair grounds; that the defendant charged an admission fee to enter its said grounds, which the plaintiff paid, and, for the purpose of giving a better view of the trials of speed, defendant had constructed the elevated seats, or bleachers, for use by visitors and patrons of the fair; that plaintiff entered upon said elevated seats, or bleachers, and while standing upon the highest one of said seats, the support of which was rotten, decayed, and defective, said seat by reason thereof broke and gave way, whereby the plaintiff was precipitated to and thrown with great force and violence upon the ground and greatly bruised, hurt, and wounded. The declaration contains three counts. It alleges that defendant is a corporation created, organized, and existing under and by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the state of Illinois entitled ‘An act to revise the law in relation to the department of agriculture, agricultural societies, and agricultural fairs and provide for reports of the same,’ approved June 23, 1883, in force July 1, 1883 (Laws 1883, p. 1). The declaration is based upon the theory that the defendant, the State Board of Agriculture, is liable for the negligence charged to the same extent as any private corporation. Defendant demurred to the declaration, but the demurrer was overruled,and it thereupon pleaded the general issue and filed six special pleas, alleging, in substance, that defendant was not a corporation but was an arm or agency of the state for the management of the department of agriculture. The plaintiff moved to strike the special pleas from the files, which motion was allowed. Defendant excepted to the ruling and elected to stand by its special pleas. A jury was impaneled, the cause tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, and also at the conclusion of all the evidence, defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find it not guilty, but the motions were denied. After the verdict was returned, defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, but the motions were overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict. Defendant prosecuted this appeal directly to this court on the ground that the state is interested and that the construction of the Constitution and the validity of a statute are involved.

It is contended that appellant is an arm or agency of the state and cannot be held liable for the negligence complained of; that it is not a corporation but is a board managing a department of the state, namely, the department of agriculture, and making it a defendant in this suit is the same as making the state a defendant, which is forbidden by section 26 of article 4 of the Constitution. It is also contended that section 5 of the act creating the State Board of Agriculture, in so far as it authorizes said board to be sued, is invalid. It is further contended that on the merits the verdict and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

The Illinois State Agricultural Society was created by an act of the Legislature in 1853 (Laws 1853, p. 230), which act provided that the society should be known as a body politic and corporate. The object of the society was declared to be ‘to promote the agricultural, horticultural, manufacturing, mechanic, and household arts,’ and for that purpose the society was authorized to hold real estate to the amount of $25,000. The act authorized the society to contract and be contracted with, and to sue and be sued in all courts of law or equity in this state, and to enjoy all the privileges incident to corporations of its character not inconsistent with the laws of this state. The society was given power to alter and amend its constitution and to make, alter, and repeal such by-laws as might be deemed necessary for carrying out the objects of the society. In 1871 the General Assembly passed an act entitled ‘An act to create a department of agriculture in the state of Illinois' (Laws 1871-72, p. 113), the object of which was the promotion of agricuiture, horticulture, manufacturing, and agriculture, horticulture, manufacturing, and business of said department should be conducted by a board to be styled ‘the State Board of Agriculture,’ which should consist of a president, as many vice presidents as there are or from time to time may be congressional districts in this state, and the last ex-president of the State Board of Agriculture. The said president and vice presidents were to hold their offices for two years. The first board under the act was to consist of the president, vice presidents, and the last ex-president of the Illinois State Agricultural Society. The board was to have a secretary and treasurer, who should not be members of the board. The first secretary and treasurer were to be the secretary and treasurer of the Illinois State Agricultural Society. The second section of the act gave the State Board of Agriculture sole control of the affairs of the department of agriculture, of all state fairs, and power to make such by-laws, rules, and regulations in the management of the business of the department of agriculture and state fairs, and in offering premiums, as the board might from time to time determine upon, but the state was in no event to be liable for any premium offered or debt contracted by said board. Section 3 authorized the State Board of Agricultureto make provision for the organization of county agricultural boards. Section 4 provided that money appropriated from time to time for the department of agriculture should be paid to the State Board of Agriculture, to be expended in such manner as in the opinion of said board would best advance the interests of agriculture, horticulture, manufacturing, and domestic arts in this state. Section 5 required the board to keep an office at Springfield for the transaction of its business, and provided that, when the new state house was so far completed as to allow it, there should be assigned to the department of agriculture suitable rooms therein, to be under the control of the said board. Section 6 authorized the State Board of Agriculture to contract and be contracted with, to purchase, hold, or sell property, and to sue and be sued in all courts or places, but the state was not to be liable for any of its debts or contracts. Section 7 provided the time at which the first election for members of the board should be held and the manner in which they should be elected. The board was required to make annual reports to the Governor of the transactions of the department of agriculture, giving a complete, classified, financial statement of all money received and of all expenditures and expenses, and the Governor was required to cause 10,000 copies of said annual report to be printed, one-half for the use of the department of agriculture and the remainder for the use of the state and General Assembly. In 1874 the act of 1871 (Rev. St. 1874, p. 130) was revised, but no changes were made which are necessary to be noticed in the decision of this case. The act was again revised in 1883. Laws of 1883, p. 1. It provided that the department of agriculture should be continued, and contained substantially all the provisions of the previous acts of 1871 and 1874 with reference to the duties and powers of the State Board of Agriculture. In addition to giving the board sole control of the affairs of the department of agriculture and state fairs, it was authorized to hold fat stock shows at such times and places as it might determine upon. The power conferred by the previous acts upon the board to purchase, hold, and sell property, to contract and be contracted with, and to sue and be sued was retained in the act of 1883, as was also the requirement that the board make annual reports to the Governor.

[1] Appellee contends that the Illinois Agricultural Society was a private corporation, and, whether the act creating the department of agriculture was an amendment of the former society's charter or the creation of a new corporation, appellant is a private corporation or at most a quasi public corporation, to which are delegated the control and management of the state department of agriculture. Prior to 1871 there was no department of the state known as the department of agriculture. The act of that year created a department of the state known as the department of agriculture, and the sole control of its management for the purpose of best promoting the objects of its establishment was conferred upon a board created for that purpose, to be known as the State Board of Agriculture. Appellee concedes in his brief that, in so far as the acts of the State Board of Agriculture relate to the department of agriculture, its acts are of such public nature as to be classed as acts of the state, ‘and in performing the particular duties in connection with the management of the department of agriculture the State Board of Agriculture acts...