People ex rel. Fanz v. Dopp

• Decision Date: 23 April 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20626.,20626.
• Citation: 175 N.E. 812,343 Ill. 521
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. FANZ v. DOPP.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

343 Ill. 521

175 N.E. 812

PEOPLE ex rel. FANZ

v.DOPP.

No. 20626.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1931.

Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Stephen E. Fanz, against William H. Dopp, Jr. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Marcus Kavanagh, judge.

Richard F. Locke and Gale C. Marquess, both of Glen Ellyn, for appellant.

Clarence C. Taylor, of Chicago, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Cook county denying a writ of mandamus to the petitioner, who is appellant here. The petition was filed November 5, 1930, and set forth that petitioner was a resident and taxpayer of school district No. 95, in Cook county; that the school district was organized under and by virtue of the laws of Illinois many years ago and has continued as a body corporate since its organization; that its board of education consisted of a president and six members; that it is now, and has long been, conducting schools and functioning as a school district under the laws of Illinois. The petition alleged that William H. Dopp, Jr., was the duly elected and qualified president of the board of education of district No. 95; that the district was thickly populated, with many families, and that large numbers of children of school age were in attendance at the public schools of the district; that the district lies wholly within a suburban residence area, has no factories or industries within it, and that the source of revenue of the district is wholly from taxes paid upon small homes occupied largely by working people of moderate means; that the district has not in recent years had sufficient revenue to meet the proper and necessary expenses of the rapidly growing schools; and that it was heavily indebted in 1927 and prior thereto. The petition further alleged that, by reason of the reassessment of the real property in the district for the year 1928 and the consequent failure of the school district to receive taxes levied and assessed by the board of education for the years 1928 and 1929, the board, in order to maintain the schools of the district and keep them in operation during that period of time, issued to teachers employed by the board in the school district warrants for salaries due and owing to the teachers, known as teachers' warrants, in the approximate amount of $56,000; that the warrants were presented for payment to the township treasurer wherein the district was located, but were indorsed by the township treasurer ‘Not paid for want of funds,’ with the date of presentation noted thereon, as provided by law. The petition also alleged that on September 27, 1930, the district had teachers' warrants outstanding and unpaid in the amount of approximately $56,000, together with the lawful interest which had accrued thereon; that at a properly convened meeting of the board of education of the district held on September 27, 1930, a resolution was duly and regularly adopted authorizing the issuance of funding bonds of the district in the amount of $60,000 pursuant to the authority vested in the board by section 201 of an act entitled ‘An act to establish and maintain a system of free schools,’ adopted June 12, 1909, as amended (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 122, § 201); that the bonds so authorized were duly prepared and presented to respondent, the president of the board of education, for signature; that the refused to sign the bonds, by reason whereof the school district was unable to pay the indebtedness on the teachers' warrants and was hindered in procuring credit with which to maintain and continue the operation of the schools in the...