People Ex Rel. John M. Sullivan v. Weber

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: People Ex Rel. John M. Sullivan v. Weber, 86 Ill. 283, 1877 WL 9715 (Ill. 1877)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. John M. Sullivanv.HERMAN G. WEBER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

86 Ill. 283

1877 WL 9715 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE ex rel. John M. Sullivan

v.HERMAN G. WEBER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

This was a petition presented in this court for a mandamus.

Mr. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, for the petitioner.

Mr. CHARLES P. KNISPEL, Mr. WILLIAM C. ELLISON, and Mr. M. MILLARD, for the defendant.

Per CURIAM:

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus, presented by John M. Sullivan, claiming to be the city treasurer of the city of East St. Louis, the purpose of which is to compel Herman G. Weber, county collector of St. Clair county, to pay over to him as treasurer of the city the sum of $15,351.45 of the city taxes which Weber had collected by virtue of his office of county collector, the same being part and parcel of the city tax levy of 1876.

From the pleadings in the cause it appears the right to exercise the office of city treasurer is denied, and we are not satisfied the petitioner has a clear title to the office.It would seem the mayor, in the performance of his duty and in obedience to the law, at the regular meeting of the city council next after the removal of Franz and the appointment of petitioner, submitted his actings and doings in this regard to the council, accompanied by the nomination of petitioner to the office of city treasurer to supply the vacancy.The council, in a full meeting, disapproved of the removal of Franz, and, by yeas and nays entered upon its records, refused to consent to the appointment of petitioner as city treasurer, and no person has been since appointed to that office.And it further appears the city council has not approved of the bond of petitioner, and have constantly refused to recognize him as city treasurer.We are of opinion the nomination of petitioner by the mayor having been rejected by the city council had the effect to nullify the appointment by the mayor and to render it of no effect.He was not from that time forth the city treasurer.

But it is said he was de facto such officer.We believe the rule to be, when one claims rights as an officer by virtue of his office he must show that he is legally entitled to act; that he is an officer de jure as well as de facto.The acts of the former are valid and effectual everywhere, for he is clothed with all the power and authority appertaining to the office, and his acts, within the limits of his authority, can not be questioned anywhere.The acts of a de facto officer are valid only so far as the rights of the public, or of...