People ex rel. Greening v. Green

• Decision Date: 31 May 1943
• Docket Number: No. 26729.,26729.
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. GREENING, State's Attorney, v. GREEN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

382 Ill. 577

47 N.E.2d 465

PEOPLE ex rel. GREENING, State's Attorney,

v.GREEN et al.

No. 26729.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 16, 1943.

As Modified May Term, 1943.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Walter W. Wright, judge.

Quo warranto proceeding by the People, on the relation of A. H. Greening, State's Attorney of Sangamon County, against Dwight H. Green and others. The complaint was dismissed and judgment entered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

SMITH, J., dissenting.A. H. Greening, State's Atty., of Springfield (Thomas W. Hoopes, of Springfield, of counsel), for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Albert E. Hallett, Jr., of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

FULTON, Justice.

This is an action of quo warranto, brought by the People of the State of Illinois, on the relation of the State's Attorney of Sangamon county, under the authority and provisions of paragraphs 9 and 10, chapter 112, Illinois Revised Statutes 1941.

The complaint filed in the trial court alleged that the several defendants unlawfully pretend and claim to be members and officers of a corporation, under the name and style of ‘Illinois State Public Building Authority,’ and are attempting unlawfully to function as a corporation and exercise privileges, as such, without being legally incorporated. The defendants filed a joint answer, in which they admitted the alleged activities on their part and plead, as their sole justification, the provisions of an act of the Sixty-second General Assembly, entitled, ‘An Act to create an Illinois State Public Building Authority for cities, villages and incorporated towns of 75,000 or more inhabitants and to define the powers and duties thereof,’ approved June 28, 1941. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendants' answer and for a judgment of ouster on the ground that the act relied upon by the defendants, as authorizing their actions, is unconstitutional.

Both parties have adopted the following state of facts: The act of the General Assembly referred to appears as paragraphs 201-213, chapter 127, Illinois Revised Statutes 1941. The act provides, in substance, that the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Treasurer, Auditor of Public Accounts, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Attorney General of the State of Illinois, together with a member of the Supreme Court, or a citizen appointed by the Supreme Court, and a member appointed by the Governor, are created a ‘body corporate and politic, constituting a public corporation and government instrumentality’ designated the Illinois State Public Building Authority. In is further provided that the Governor shall be ex officio president, the Secretary of State ex officio secretary, the State Treasurer ex officio treasurer, the Auditor of Public Accounts ex officio auditor, and the Attorney General ex officio attorney of the Authority. The act requires that each member of the Authority, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath to faithfully discharge the same. The treasurer is required to give bond in the amount of $10,000 for each 50,000 square feet of floor space owned by the Authority.

The powers of the Authority are to be exercised by a governing body consisting of the members heretofore mentioned. The act provides that within thirty days after the effective date thereof the Authority shall meet, organize and prepare its bylaws, rules and regulations. Seven members of the Authority are to constitute a quorum for the purpose of organizing the Authority and thereafter conducting its business. A majority of a quorum is necessary to any action taken by the Authority.

The Authority is authorized to purchase, construct, alter, repair, maintain and operate buildings suitable for the office needs of the State in municipalities of 75,000 or more inhabitants. It is invested with the function of determining the need of a State office building in any such municipality and is given the power, subject to the approval of the Governor, to issue bonds to finance the cost of acquiring, constructing, altering, repairing, maintaining or operating such buildings in the amount of $12,000,000. It is provided that ‘such bonds shall be payable solely from the income derived from the operation of the building, or buildings, and shall not constitute an indebtedness of the Authority, or the State of Illinois, payable in any other manner.’ The Authority is authorized to lease such buildings for office space to the several branches of the State government and to lease to others space not needed for State offices.

The Authority is authorized to contract and be contracted with, to appoint officers, agents and employees and fix their duties and compensation, to have and use a common seal, to exercise the power of eminent domain, and to enter into leases, contracts and agreements with any agency of the Federal government. It is provided that the Authority shall have no power to levy taxes or to pledge any of its property, other than money derived from income, for the payment of any debts. The ownership of buildings acquired by the Authority is to vest exclusively in the Authority, free from any legal or equitable interest in anyone else. The act provides that all rentals collected by the Authority shall be deposited by the Treasurer in the banks authorized to act as depositories for funds of the municipality wherein any property of the Authority is located. The income from rentals is reserved, first, to pay the expenses of the Authority in operating the buildings, second, to establish a reserve to cover estimated expenses for two months' operating cost, third, to pay interest on bonds and, fourth, to retire bonds. All property belonging to the Authority is exempt from taxation. Every branch of the State government which rents office space in any of the municipalities referred to may contract with the Authority for such space as it may need, such lease to be made upon the same conditions as now provided by the law governing leases by the State departments. The holders of bonds issued by the Authority are given the right to require the Authority, by mandamus, to rent the buildings and collect rentals and other charges adequate to carry out any agreement with respect to the revenues of the Authority, and to require the Authority to carry out agreements for the benefit of such bondholders and to perform its duties under the Act. Officers, departments, divisions, boards and commissions of the State government having lands not needed for State purposes may, with the approval of the Governor, convey or lease the same to the Authority, with or without consideration.

The trial court overruled the motion of plaintiff-appellant to strike the answer of defendants and appellant elected to stand by said motion, whereupon the trial court entered an order requiring the plaintiff-appellant to reply to the answer of the defendants. The plaintiff refused to plead further, whereupon the court entered its order dismissing the complaint and entering judgment for the defendants, from which order this appeal is taken.

Twelve separate grounds have been urged by appellant upon which the People rely to establish the unconstitutionality of the act in question.

It is first contended that the Illinois State Public Building Authority Act violates section 13 of article IV of the constitution of 1870, Smith-Hurd Stats., in that the subject matter thereof is not germane to or within the scope of the title of the act. The full title of the act reads: ‘An Act to create an Illinois State Public Building Authority for cities, villages and incorporated towns of 75,000 or more inhabitants and to define the powers and duties thereof.’ Said section 13 of article IV provides in part, ‘No act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.’ The criticism directed to this title is that the provisions of the act under consideration are wholly foreign and unrelated to the title; that the body of the enactment creates a Building Authority for the State of Illinois, and not for cities, villages and incorporated towns. While we think the title might have been so stated as to better inform the people and the legislature of the subject matter thereof, we do not believe it is so misleading as to come within the constitutional prohibition. In Reif v. Barrett, 355 Ill. 104, at page 124, 188 N.E. 889, at page 898, this court, in passing upon the validity of the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act, Ill. Rev.Stat.1941, c. 120, § 440 et seq., wherein this same objection was made, said, ‘however, it is not intended by this constitutional provision that the title of the act shall go into all the details of the proposed law, neither shall it be a table of its contents, but it is sufficient if the title correctly...