People ex rel. Jendrick v. Allman
| Decision Date | 22 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 29819.,29819. |
| Citation | 71 N.E.2d 44,396 Ill. 35 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. JENDRICK v. ALLMAN, Commissioner of Police, et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Ulysses S. Schwartz, judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the People, on the relation of Frank R. Jendrick, against James P. Allman, Commissioner of Police, and others to compel the respondents to restore the petitioner to the position of patrolman in the classified service in the City of Chicago. From a judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Eugene P. Meegan, of Chicago, for appellant.
Barnet Hodes, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Joseph F. Grossman and J. Herzl Segal, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
Appellant, Jendrick, sought a writ of mandamus in the superior court of Cook county to compel appellees, the commissioner of police and civil service commissioners of the city of Chicago, to restore him to the position of patrolman in the classified service in that city, under section 12 of ‘An Act to regulate the civil service of cities,’ as amended in 1945. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 24 1/2, par. 51, p. 768.) The court, on motion of appellees, held this amendment to section 12 to be unconstitutional and so certified. The cause was dismissed and comes here on direct appeal with only the question of the validity of that amendment involved. That amendment, so far as material here, is as follows:
Jendrick, an honorably discharged veteran of World War I, complains that he was discharged because he had misstated his age in his application for examination under civil service for the position of patrolman; that on March 7, 1936, he successfully passed all phases of the examination and was duly certified and appointed as a patrolman, the duties of which position he honorably discharged until August 5, 1943, when charges were filed against him on the ground that he, in his application, had stated his age to be 27, which was the maximum age at which he could take such examination and be appointed, whereas his age at the time of such examination was 37. He was found guilty and dismissed from the service. The General Assembly in 1945 passed the amendment to section 12 hereinabove quoted. Thereafter appellant filed with the civil service commission a demand for reinstatement and on refusal filed his complaint.
In this court appellant argues that the act is constitutional, while appellees contend that it is not, for two reasons, (1) it violates section 22 of article IV of our constitution, Smith-Hurd Stats., in that it confers special privileges and immunities upon a certain class of veterans, and, (2) it violates section 10 of article IX in that it imposes an obligation upon cities for corporate purposes without their consent. Counsel for appellant urge that the first objection to the constitutionality of the act was not made in the court below and so cannot be considered here. The superior court found the act unconstitutional and did not state the reason for so considering it. It is a rule too well settled to require the citation of authority that the appellee, on appeal, may urge whatever ground he chooses in attempting to sustain the judgment appealed from. There is no merit to this objection.
In arguing that the amendment violates section 22 of article IV of our constitution, it is conceded by counsel for appellees that the General Assembly has power to provide for preferential treatment of honorably discharged veterans, and to provide for appointments to office where the qualifications are not prescribed by the constitution. This court so held in People ex rel. Sellers v. Brady, 262 Ill. 578, 105 N.E. 1. Appellees contend, however, that this amendment goes far beyond the limitations of such preferential treatment and in so doing confers special privileges and immunities upon a favored class of veterans contrary to section 22 of article IV of the constitution.
People ex rel. Sellers v. Brady, 262 Ill. 578, 105 N.E. 1, relied on by appellant, discussed that part of the Civil Service Act of 1911 providing that honorably discharged soldiers and sailors of the Civil War should be preferred for appointment to civil service positions, provided they passed the examination and were found to possess the necessary business capacity for the proper discharge of the duties of such position. In that case this court held that an act of the General Assembly that is made applicable to a certain class or classes of citizens must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. P.H.
...131 N.E.2d 487; Hoffman v. Nustra (1986), 143 Ill.App.3d 259, 265, 97 Ill.Dec. 322, 492 N.E.2d 981; see also People ex rel. Jendrick v. Allman (1947), 396 Ill. 35, 37, 71 N.E.2d 44. STANDARD OF REVIEW There is a basic presumption that all statutes are constitutional (People v. Bales (1985),......
-
Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co.
...either in the trial court or on appeal as an independent basis to sustain the dismissal order as to it, citing People ex rel. Jendrick v. Allman (1947), 396 Ill. 35, 71 N.E.2d 44; Thornberry v. Board of Education (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 351, 290 N.E.2d 360; Mound City Warehouse Co. v. Illinois......
-
Leichtenberg's Estate, In re
...when the questions of statutory limitations, Becker v. Billings, 304 Ill. 190, 136 N.E. 581; unconstitutionality, People ex rel. Jendrick v. Allman, 396 Ill. 35, 71 N.E.2d 44; plaintiff's negligence, Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Motor Bus Co., 310 Ill. 38, 141 N.E. 392, 30 A.L.R. 491; and sc......
-
Grasse v. Dealer's Transport Co.
...& Foundry Co., 249 Ill. 508, 94 N.E. 945; Marallis v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. 422, 182 N.E. 394, 83 A.L.R. 1222, People ex rel. Jendrick v. Allman, 396 Ill. 35, 71 N.E.2d 44; Agnew v. Woodruff & Edwards, 365 Ill. 384, 6 N.E.2d 623; Michigan Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. McDonough, 358 I......