People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer
| Decision Date | 19 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40090,40090 |
| Citation | 223 N.E.2d 128,36 Ill.2d 438 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. Dale CURTIN et al., Appellants, v. Donald HEIZER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Howard Clotfelter, State's Atty., Chester, Sprague & Bock, Belleville, and Conn & Clendenin, Sparta, for appellants.
Atchison & Koeneman, Chester, for appellees.
Plaintiff, the State of Illinois, on the relation of certain landowner-taxpayers, filed its Quo warranto complaint in the circuit court of Randolph County contesting the validity of the organization of the Prairie Du Rocher Fire Protection District. Defendant district trustees answered, justifying their position by setting forth in full the records of the former county court of Randolph County establishing the fire protection district. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district had been lawfully created and that they were properly holding positions as trustees. On appeal to the Appellate Court, Fifth District, the judgment was affirmed by a divided court. (71 Ill.App.2d 6, 218 N.E.2d 11) We have allowed plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal.
The pertinent portions of the statute governing the organization of fire protection districts (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 127 1/2, par. 21) provided at the time of the organization of this district as follows:
'Fifty or more of the legal voters resident within the limits of such proposed district, or a majority thereof if less than 100, may petition the county court of the county which contains all or the largest portion of the proposed district to cause the question to be submitted to the legal voters of such proposed district, whether such proposed territory shall be organized as a fire protection district under this Act; such petition shall be addressed to said county court and shall contain a definite description of the boundaries of the territory to be embraced in the proposed district, and the name of such proposed district and shall allege facts in support of such organization and incorporation.
'Upon filing any such petition in the office of the county clerk of the county in which such petition is made, it shall be the duty of the county court to fix a time and place for a hearing upon the subject of the petition.
'Notice shall be given by the county court to whom the petition is addressed, or by the county clerk or sheriff of the county in which such petition is made at the order and direction of the county court, of the time and place of the hearing upon the subject of the petition at least 20 days prior thereto by the publication thereof in one or more daily or weekly papers published within the proposed fire protection district (or if no daily or weekly newspaper is published within such proposed fire protection district, then either by one publication thereof in any newspaper of general circulation within said territory or by posting at least 10 copies of such notice in such district at least 20 days before such hearing in conspicuous places as far separated from each other as consistently possible), and by mailing a copy of such notice to the mayor or president of the board of trustees of all cities, villages and incorporated towns within such proposed fire protection district.'
Plaintiff challenges the validity of the organization of the district on several bases, only one of which need be considered here.
It should be noted that plaintiff's Quo warranto complaint constitutes a collateral attack upon the proceedings of the county court purporting to establish the district. As such, only jurisdictional defects in those proceedings may be reached, assertions of mere error being maintainable only by direct appeal. (People ex rel. Cash v. Wells, 291 Ill. 584, 586, 126 N.E. 575.) However, where, as here, the county court derived its jurisdiction to proceed in a matter solely from statute, ordinary presumptions of jurisdiction do not obtain, and every fact necessary to support such jurisdiction must appear from the face of the record. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alarm Detection Sys., Inc. v. Orland Fire Prot. Dist.
...212 (4th Dist.1975) ; Winfield Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Wheaton, 29 Ill.App.3d 630, 332 N.E.2d 43 (2d Dist.1975) ; People v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 (1967).3 Pedersen v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 380 Ill.Dec. 541, 8 N.E.3d 1083 (1st Dist.2014) ; Lynd v. Bristol Kendall Fi......
-
Estate of Steinfeld, In re
...expressly prohibited by statute; thus the trial court was without the power to enter it. Joseph's reliance on People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer (1967), 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128, is also misplaced. The judgment at issue in Heizer erroneously included within a fire protection district land......
-
People v. Walker
...Trucking Co. v. Industrial Com., 37 Ill.2d 341, 344, 226 N.E.2d 601 (1967). The People next argue, citing People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 (1967), that the Airport Authority was unlawfully created because it included property over which it could not exercise au......
-
In re Andrew B.
...a cause erroneous and of no effect"). We trace the misstatements from Shaw to our supreme court's decision in People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 (1967). See Shaw, 153 Ill. App.3d at 943, 106 Ill.Dec. 749, 506 N.E.2d 456, citing In re King, 148 Ill.App.3d 741, 745......