People ex rel. Cameron v. New
| Decision Date | 21 February 1905 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. CAMERON et al. v. NEW et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Ford County; C. D. Myers, Judge.
Petition in the nature of quo warranto by the people, on relation of J. S. Cameron and others, against John C. New and others. There was judgment for defendants, and relators bring error. Affirmed.H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., Frank Lindley, and Cloud & Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.
Ray, Dobbins & Riley and A. L. Phillips, for defendants in error.
On October 12, 1903, the Attorney General, on the relation of the plaintiffs in error, filed a petition in the nature of quo warranto in the circuit court of Ford county against defendants in error, charging them with usurping and exercising the powers and privileges of a body corporate and politic over certain lands in sections 10 and 11, in township 23 north, range 8 east, of the third principal meridian, in said Ford county, which lands included the north three-fourths of the northeast quarter of section 10; that they wrongfully claimed and pretended that said territory had been legally organized into a village named Elliott, and that they wrongfully assumed to act as trustees of the said supposed village of Elliott, and assumed jurisdiction over the territory therein described. To the information the respondents filed a plea of disclaimer and five special pleas, setting out the various steps in the organization of the village of Elliott, regular in every respect except that, in attempting to describe the south three-fourths of the northeast quarter of section 10 in the petition, by inadvertence and clerical error the word ‘north’ was used instead of the word ‘south,’ but the territory of the village was referred to in such petition as contiguous, and a plat of the same made a part thereof, which clearly showed that the use of the word ‘north’ was an error, and that the word ‘south’ was intended. No one resided on the north 40 acres, and no notices were posted for that territory, but the inhabitants of the south 40 acres participated in the election, etc. There was a similiter filed to the first plea and a replication to the others, averring that the only proceedings taken to organize the village were for the organization of the territory described in the written petition, which included the north three-fourths of the northeast quarter of section 10, and excluded the south one-fourth thereof, and that the territory in the petition was not an area of contiguous territory. Upon a hearing before the court without a jury there was a finding and judgment for defendants in error, from which judgment a writ of error has been prosecuted.
WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).
The plaintiffs in error question the legality of the proceedings for the organization of the proposed village, and the right of the defendants in error to act as village officers thereof, on the sole ground that the petition, by reason of the above-mentioned mistake, failed to describe contiguous territory, and therefore the whole proceeding was illegal and void. All other steps in the organization are conceded to have been regular in form and in compliance with the requirements of the statute. The part of the northeast quarter of section 10 intended to be included is the south three-fourths thereof, which is contiguous to other territory described in the written petition. The petition omits 40 acres lying almost in the center of the proposed village, surrounded by other lands which are included, while 40 acres lying north of the village are included, manifestly contrary to the intention of the petitioners. The statute, however, provides that the petition shall describe contiguous territory (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 182, p. 306), and if by reasonable construction and fair intendment that requirement has not been complied with all subsequent steps were unauthorized and void, the petition being the foundation of the organization.
The petition recites that petitioners ‘are legal voters residing within the following contiguous territory,’ etc....
To continue reading
Request your trial