People ex rel. Carruthers v. Swift
| Decision Date | 22 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 10359.,10359. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. CARRUTHERS v. SWIFT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; James A. Creighton, Judge.
Quo warranto by the People, on the relation of Walter Carruthers, against W. E. Swift and others. From judgment sustaining defendants' motion to set aside the order granting leave to file the information and dismissing the proceeding, relator appeals. Affirmed.Edmund Burke, John P. Flood, C. F. Mortimer, and Graham & Graham, all of Springfield, for appellant.
E. Etter, of Waverly, and George B. Gillespie and Stevens & Herndon, all of Springfield, for appellees.
The circuit of Sangamon county on the motion of the state's attorney granted him leave to file an information on the relation of Walter Carruthers against the appellees, calling upon them to show by what authority they assumed to hold and exercise the office of president and members of the board of education of a certain township high school district. The information having been filed, the appellees moved the court to set aside the order granting leave to file it, and the court sustained the motion and dismissed the proceeding. The relator appealed to this court. The motion was heard upon the affidavit filed in support of the motion for leave to file the information, and the appellant insists upon three grounds for reversing the judgment.
[1] First. The supposed township high school district was organized pursuant to a petition in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of 1911 authorizing the organization of high school districts. It is insisted that the territory included in the district is not compact and contiguous, as required by that section. The territory includes almost 67 sections of land. Its greatest length is 10 miles; its greatest width 9 1/2. If situated in a square the sides would be more than 8 miles long; if in a circle, the diameter would be more than 9 miles long. A circle with a radius of 5 miles includes practically all of the land. There are some irregularities in the boundaries of the district, so that it is not quadrilateral, its boundaries consisting of broken lines, but it cannot be said that the territory is not compact, unless it is held that the district can only be organized in the form of a square or circle. In People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N. E. 537, it was held that this was not necessary; that territory was contiguous when it was united or joined together. ‘Compact’ is defined as meaning, ‘closely and firmly united, as the parts or particles of solid bodies having the parts or particles packed together; ‘close’; [firm;] ‘solid’; ‘dense.” Giving a reasonable construction to the language of the section this territory must be held to be contiguous and compact.
[2] Second. It is argued that it the petition for the organization of the district the description of the territory proposed to be included in the high school district is uncertain, so that the territory cannot be accurately located. The description of the territory, after starting at the southwest corner of section 34, town 13, range 8, west of the third principal meridian, proceeds through various calls to the northwest corner of section 29; thence north along the west line of sections 20, 17, and 8 to the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8; ‘thence east along the south line of said quarter section to the southeast corner thereof; thence north to the northeast corner of said quarter section; thence east to the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 5, in said township.’ There is a manifest defect in the description of the boundary between the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8 and the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 5, and it is insisted that it is impossible to tell how much land in section 8 is intended to be included in the district. The description calls for a line east from the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter along the south line of said quarter section to the southeast corner thereof. It is apparent that a line east from that starting point could not run along the south line of that quarter section and would not arrive at the southeast corner of that quarter section. It seems that either the word ‘quarter’ was omitted before the word ‘quarter section,’ or that the word ‘section’ was improperly inserted. Two points and two directions are definitely fixed by this portion of the description: The southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8 and a line running east from it, and the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of section 5 and a line running east to it. These two fines are parallel and cannot meet. The description calls for a line from one to the other, running north and south. This line runs north from the southeast corner of a quarter in section 8 to the northeast corner of that quarter, where it meets the line running east to the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of section 5. These quarters cannot be quarter sections, because it is impossible for the lines to run to quarter section corners and comply with the other calls of the description; but if the word ‘section’ is rejected, so that the quarter refers to a quarter of a quarter and not to the quarter of a section, then the description is harmonious and would read as follows:
‘Thence north along and upon the west line of sections 20, 17 and 8 to the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8; thence east along the south line of said quarter to the southeast corner thereof; thence north to the northeast corner of said quarter; thence east to the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section 5, in said township.’
There can be no doubt that this was the meaning intended. Rejecting the word ‘section’ as a word of false description, the description is good.
[3] Another objection to the description of the territory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Apportionment Commission
...Those districts which occupy relatively greater areas within the circle could be said to be more compact. See People v. Swift, 270 Ill. 532, 110 N.E. 904, 905 (Sup.Ct.1915). This Court in Scrimminger v. Sherwin, Supra, 60 N.J. at 498, 291 A.2d at 142, stated * * * The requirement for contig......
-
People ex rel. Shake v. Simpson
...ground that it was too large to be a part of a thorough and efficient system of free schools. Indeed, this court said in People v. Swift, 270 Ill. 532, 110 N. E. 904: ‘No limitation has been placed by the Legislature upon the amount of territory that may be included in the school district. ......
-
People ex rel. Reinhart v. Herrin
...in a circle or quadrilateral, yet under the rulings of this court in People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N. E. 537, and People v. Swift, 270 Ill. 532, 110 N. E. 904, there can be no question that the district must be held to be compact and contiguous, as those terms are used in the High Sc......
-
People ex rel. Darnell v. Woodward
...a circle or quadrilateral in form, yet under the rulings of this court in People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N. E. 537,People v. Swift, 270 Ill. 532, 110 N. E. 904, and People v. Herrin (No. 12121) 284 Ill. 368, 120 N. E. 274, there can be no question that the district must be held to be ......