People ex rel. Livers v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12994.,12994.
• Citation: 125 N.E. 268,290 Ill. 370
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. LIVERS et al. v. HANSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

290 Ill. 370

125 N.E. 268

PEOPLE ex rel. LIVERS et al.

v.HANSON et al.

No. 12994.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1919.

Information in the nature of quo warranto by the People, on the relation of Edward Livers and others, against W. P. Hanson and others, as members of a board of education. From a judgment of ouster, the defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardin County; J. C. Eagleton, judge.

Charles Durfee, of Golconda, and James A. Watson, of Elizabethtown, for appellants.

Clarence E. Soward, State's Atty., of Elizabethtown (John W. Browning, of Golconda, of counsel), for appellees.

THOMPSON, J.

An information in the nature of quo warranto purporting to be by Clarence E. Soward, state's attorney of Hardin county, upon the relation of Edward Livers and others against W. P. Hanson and others, to oust them from the offices of members of the board of education of a consolidated school district embracing certain territory in townships 12 and 13 south, range 8 east, and townships 12 and 13 south, range 7 east, in Hardin county, Ill., was filed in the circuit court of said county. The information is based upon the alleged illegality of the district because of irregularity in the proceedings for its formation. Five pleas were filed to the information, to the first four of which demurrers were sustained. Replication was filed to the fifth plea, and after a hearing on the issues thus joined the court entered a judgment of ouster against appellants. To reverse that decree appellants have perfected this appeal.

[1][2] The first contention made by appellants is that the court improperly sustained the demurrer of appellees to appellants' first plea. This plea alleged, among other things, that Clarence E. Soward, whose name appears on the information as state's attorney of Hardin county, was one of the petitioners who signed a petition for the consolidation of districts 16 and 17; that appellants, together with other persons whose names are subscribed to the petition for consolidation, employed said Soward as an attorney and legal adviser to aid and direct them in their efforts to secure consolidation of said districts into a consolidated district and when so consolidated to legally direct the organization of such consolidated district; that said Soward, as such attorney and legal adviser, undertook the matter of such orgaization and consolidation; that his advice and directions were followed and obeyed by appellants; that he directed and advised in legal detail the matter of the election of this board of education for said consolidated district; that, acting upon the advice and counsel of said Soward, appellants have incurred expense in employing teachers and engaging rooms and otherwise in preparing to maintain school in said consolidated district; and that said Soward, by reason of such employment, is barred and forever estopped from presenting and filing this information in his official capacity as state's attorney of Hardin county or otherwise. We have held that an attorney cannot represent conflicting interests or undertake to discharge inconsistent duties. When he is once retained and has received the confidence of a client, he cannot enter the service of those whose interests are adverse to those of his client, no matter how honest his motives and intentions. People v. Gerold, 265 Ill. 448, 107 N. E. 165, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 636;Strong v. International Investment Union, 183 Ill. 97, 55 N. E. 675,47 L. R. A. 792. In the cases cited we discuss this question at length and set out fully the reasons for the establishment of this rule. No good purpose could be served by restating the reasons here. The rule finds further support in 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 295, 6 Corpus Juris, 619, and 2 R. C. L. 973. An attorney cannot properly appear against a party in a criminal proceedingwhen he is employed to represent such party or has represented him in a civil case arising out of the same matter. 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 299; 6 Corpus Juris, 621....