People ex rel. McDonough v. Jarecki

• Decision Date: 22 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 21690.,21690.
• Citation: 185 N.E. 570,352 Ill. 207
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. McDONOUGH, County Collector, v. JARECKI, County Judge.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

352 Ill. 207

185 N.E. 570

PEOPLE ex rel. McDONOUGH, County Collector,

v.JARECKI, County Judge.

No. 21690.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 22, 1933.

Petition for mandamus by the People, on the relation of Joseph B. McDonough, County Collector, against Edward K. Jarecki, County Judge.

Writ denied.

Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., James F. Clancy, and Walter E. Johnson, all of Chicago (John E. Pedderson, of South Chicago, and Louis H. Geiman and Hayden N. Bell, both of Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.

Scott, MacLeish & Falk, of Chicago (Lester L. Falk and Robert S. Cushman, both of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.

JONES, Justice.

This is an original petition for mandamus filed in this court by the people, on the relation of Joseph B. McDonough, county treasurer and ex-officio collector of Cook county, against the Honorable Edmund K. Jarecki judge of the county court of Cook county, respondent. A joint hearing was had before said judge upon objections filed by a large number of objectors to the collector's application for a judgment and order of sale for delinquent taxes for the year 1928. It is sought to compel respondent to certify, sign, and place on file a bill of exceptions or stenographic report of such hearing.

The petition alleges that the objectors named therein filed fifty-two sets of objections to the application for judgment; that the objections were based on an increase in valuation of their property by the board of review over that fixed by the board of assessors; that the objections were jointly tried at one time; that upon the trial the court on March 7, 1932, made a general verbal finding sustaining the objections ‘as to everything over and above the valuations as fixed by the board of assessors'; that thereupon counsel for the relator stated that he wished to make the usual motions, and the court said: ‘And the motion for new trial is entered and overruled. Motion in arrest of judgment overruled. Judgment on the finding. Appeal prayed and allowed’; that sixty days was agreed upon and fixed as the time for filing the bill of exceptions; that the clerk's minute book shows the following entry: ‘1566 to 1597-Monday, March 7th, '32. Judge Jarecki. Objections sustained. J. R. as to all over board of assessor's valuation. Motion new trial and motion arrest judgment overruled and judgment on the finding. Appeal prayed and allowed. Bill ex. 60 days. Order final judgment see ord.’; that on the motion book of the court there appears the following entry, dated April 6, 1932: ‘1928 tax objections 1566-1597-Mo. to enter judgment orders nunc pro tunc as of March 7, 1932.-Scott, MacLeish & Falk’; that on April 6th written orders of final judgment in objections 1566 to 1597 were presented to and signed by the court and entered by the clerk as of March 7, 1932; that on June 16th written judgments in the cases of the other twenty-one objectors were signed by the court and entered by the clerk as of March 7, 1932; that on May 11, 1932, the petitioner presented a bill of exceptions or stenographic report of the joint trial, but the judge refused to certify, sign, or place the same on file on the ground that he had lost jurisdiction in the premises, and still so refuses; and that there is now unpaid on some of the property involved, certain amounts due on the assessments made by the board of assessors. It is stated that ‘J. R.’ in the clerk's minute book means ‘judgment refused.’

Respondent's pleas aver that the sixty-day leave granted relator on March 7th in which to file a bill of exceptions expired May 6th; that the bill of exceptions was not presented until May 11th and that the time allowed for filing was not extended within the sixty-day period; that the orders signed on April 6th were not intended to and did not extend the time for filing a bill of exceptions; that relator appearing before respondent on May 7th, stated that said sixty-day period expired on that date, and asked for an extension of four days in which to file a bill of exceptions; that due to the enormous number of tax objections filed and heard in Cook county, it is, and has been for many years, the custom to prepare the written orders after the date judgment is pronounced and to have them entered as of the date of the pronouncement; that respondent and relator understood and intended respondent's pronouncement on March 7th to be a pronouncement of final judgment and that the orders signed thereafter merely expanded it; that the only taxes objected to were the increases occasioned by the board of review in excess of...