People ex rel. Akin v. Rose
| Decision Date | 16 June 1897 |
| Citation | 167 Ill. 147,47 N.E. 547 |
| Parties | PEOPLE et rel. AKIN, Atty. Gen., v. ROSE, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by Edward C. Akin, attorney general, for mandamus to James A. Rose, secretary of state. Mandamus awarded.Edward C. Akin, Atty. Gen., for the People.
This is a petition by the people, on the relation of the attorney general, for a writ of mandamus. The allegations of the petition, so far as necessary to be stated here, are, in substance, that a certain bill, known as ‘Senate Bill 369,’ to amend certain sections of the law relating to loan associations, was passed in a constitutional manner by both houses of the Fortieth general assembly of Illinois, and enrolled June 10, 1897, by the engrossing and enrolling clerk of the said general assembly, which general assembly adjourned sine die on Friday, June 4, 1897; that the bill so passed and engrossed was thereafter, before June 15, 1897, duly signed by W. A. Northcott, president of the senate, and by Ed. C. Curtis, speaker of the house of representatives of said general assembly; that thereafter, on the 15th day of June, 1897, the said bill was duly presented by the secretary of state to the governor of the state of Illinois for his approval; that said governor returned said bill to the office of the secretary of state without signature or approval, and without filing objections thereto or vetoing the same; that said bill remained in the office of said defendant, the secretary of state, at the time of filing the petition, but that the same had not been filed by said secretary, and that said secretary claimed that the bill was not entitled to be filed in his office as an act of said general assembly, for the reason that it had not been presented to the governor for approval within 10 days after the adjournment of the general assembly, and further claimed that, because the governor had not approved or disapproved such bill, he (the secretary of state) was not required by law to include the same among the Session Laws of said Fortieth General Assembly, and that he was not required to authenticate the bill by a certificate thereon as required by statute. The petition prays that the secretary of state be required by the writ of mandamus to file the said bill in his office and authenticate the same, and include it in the list of Session Laws of the Fortieth General Assembly now being prepared by said secretary for publication. Leave having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amos v. Gunn
...providing that when a bill has been passed by the Legislature and approved and signed by the Governor, it shall be a law. See People ex rel. Akin v. Rose, supra; Dow v. Beidelman, 49 Ark. 325, 5 S.W. Lankford v. County Com'rs of Somerset County, 73 Md. 105, 20 A. 1017, 22 A. 412, 11 L. R. A......
-
State v. Heston, 10471
... ... State ex rel. Armbrecht v. Thornburg, W.Va., 70 S.E.2d 73; Charleston National Bank v ... 269; Jackson v. State, 131 Ala. 21, 31 So. 380; Andrews v. People, 33 Colo. 193, 79 P. 1031; Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543, 14 N.W. 738, 15 ... 105, 20 A. 1017, 22 A. 412, 11 L.R.A. 491; People ex rel. Akin v. Rose, ... Page 493 ... 167 Ill. 147, 47 N.E. 547; Dow v ... ...
-
Landau v. Travelers Insurance Company
...56 L. R. A. 274; De Loy v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 50 Am. St. 789; Burkhard v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 102 Pa. St. 262, 48 Am. Rep. 205; People v. Rose, 47 N.E. 547; Fuller on Accident and Employers' Liability Insurance, 233; Collins v. Ins. Co., 96 Iowa 216, 64 N.W. 778, 59 Am. St. 367; Traveler......
-
People ex rel. Hillel Lodge, No. 72, I.O.B.B. v. Rose
...50 N. E. 599,40 L. R. A. 770;Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 149, 2 L. Ed. 60; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 22 L. Ed. 205;People v. Rose, 167 Ill. 147, 47 N. E. 547;People v. Van Cleave, 187 Ill. 125, 58 N. E. 422;People v. Van Cleave, 183 Ill. 330, 55 N. E. 698,47 L. R. A. 795. Counsel f......