People ex rel. Sackmann v. Keechler

• Decision Date: 18 December 1901
• Citation: 194 Ill. 235,62 N.E. 525
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SACKMANN et al. v. KEECHLER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

194 Ill. 235

62 N.E. 525

PEOPLE ex rel. SACKMANN et al.

v.KEECHLER et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; William Hartzell, Judge.

Quo warranto by the people, on relation of Henry Sackmann and others, against A. L. Keechler and others, to oust defendants from their offices on a board of education of a school district.From a judgment in defendants' favor, plaintiffs appeal.Affirmed.Charles W. Thomas, for appellants.

H. Millard, Freels & Joyce, and E. C. Kramer, for appellees.

WILKIN, C. J.

An information in quo warranto was filed in the circuit court of St. Clair county on the 18th day of June last by the attorney general, on the relation of Henry Sackmann, William Cunningham, and E. Halloran, claiming to be school directors of district No. 2, township 2 N., range 10 W., in said county, against appellees, to show by what right they claimed to hold and exercise the offices of president and members of the board of education of union district No. 10, in township 2 N., range 9 W., and township 2 N., range 10 W., in the same county.The information was of two counts, the first questioning the election of the respondents to said offices; and the second, the legality of the organization of said union district.The plea upon which the hearing was had averred that on the 1st day of April, 1901, at the meeting of the trustees of schools of each of said townships held on that day, the petition mentioned in said information for the organization of a new school district out of the territory described therein was presented.It sets out the petition at length, which asks for the formation of a new school district out of the territory therein described by metes and bounds, which included districts Nos. 1 and 2 and a portion of district No. 4, in township 2 N., range 10 W., also district No. 2, except three blocks in the southern extremity of the district, and a part of district No. 8, in township 2 N., range 9 W., which territory contained more than ten families; avers that the petition was signed by at least two-thirds of the voters residing in the territory described in the petition; that due notice of the filing of the petition was presented to all parties, as required by the statute; that the relators, as directors of district No. 2, township 2 N., range 10, appeared before the trustees and resisted the granting of the petition; that the prayer of the same was granted by the trustees, and each of the subsequent steps required by the statute duly taken; that said relators took an appeal from such order to the county superintendent of schools, as provided by the statute in such case, and that on the 27th day of April, 1901, he made an order affirming in all things the said action of the boards of trustees, and did thereafter, on May 5, 1901, give notice in writing to the several clerks of said boards of school trustees of his action and order in the premises, which order said clerks, respectively, entered upon the records of said boards; that the said several clerks thereupon, and within 10 days thereafter, made copies of said records, and filed the same with the county clerk of said county; that the clerk of the board of trustees of township 2 N., range 10 W., did within the time aforesaid file with the county clerk a map of the townships, showing said union school district No. 10, and a list of the taxpayers therein; and that said union school district No. 10 at the time of its formation and organization as aforesaid, and at the time of said election, had 30,000 inhabitants residing therein.It then proceeds to show the calling of an election for members of the board of education in said union district, setting out the various steps required by the statute to have been taken, and concludes, ‘and by this warrant the defendants have held, and still hold, the said offices, as they well might and still may, without this, that they, or either of them, has usurped or does now usurp the same, as is alleged in said information; and this they are ready to verify, wherefore they pray judgment,’ etc.To this plea the relators filed a general and special demurrer, setting forth at length numerous grounds of special demurrer.

It is first contended that the amended plea is bad because it neither denies, nor confesses and avoids, the material allegations of the second count of the information.In quo warranto to oust a party from an office, the defendant must either disclaim all right to the office, or justify by showing his title.‘If he justifies, he must set out his title specially.* * * The people are not bound to show anything.Being called upon to show by what warrant he exercises the functions of the office, if he does not exhibit good authority for doing so the people are entitled to judgment of ouster.’Catlett v. People, 151 Ill. 16, 37 N. E. 855, and cases cited.The sufficiency of the amended plea does not depend upon whether it denies, or confesses and avoids, the material allegations of the second count of the information.It must be good, in and of itself, to show the right of the respondents to the offices which they are charged with usurping.It is conceded that the plea shows good title in the respondents to the several offices in question if the petition therein set out was sufficient to authorize the concurrent action of the two boards, and that it was only necessary that it should be signed by two-thirds of the legal voters residing in the territory, and not by a majority of the legal voters residing in the districts affected, and that said union district, if legally organized, was entitled to elect a board of education, instead of three directors.Section 46 of article 3 of chapter 122 of our statutes(Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 1532) provides that the trustees of schools in newly-organized townships shall lay off the township into one or more school districts, to suit the wishes or convenience of a majority of the inhabitants of the township, etc.The next section (47) provides that, where such division into districts has been made, the ‘trustees may, in their discretion, at the regular meeting in April, when petitioned as hereinafter provided for, change such districts as lie wholly within their townships, so as,-First, to divide and consolidate districts; second, to organize a new district out of territory belonging to two or more districts; third, to detach territory from one district and add the same to another district adjacent thereto.’The next section (48) provides that no change shall be made, as provided for in the preceding sections, unless petitioned for-‘First, by a majority of the legal voters of each of the districts affected by the proposed change; second, by two-thirds of the legal voters living within certain territory, described in the petition asking that the said territory be detached from one district and added to another; third, by two-thirds of all the legal voters living within certain territory, containing not less than ten families, asking that said territory may be made a new district.’We have held that the first and second clauses of section 48 have nothing to do with the formation of a new district; that the first of those clauses relates to the division and consolidation of districts; and the second to detaching territory from one district, and adding the same to another district adjacent thereto; and the third, viz. that the petition shall be signed by two-thirds of the legal voters living within certain territory, containing not less than 10 families, asking that said territory may be made a new district, relates to the organization of a new district out of territory belonging to two or more districts.Parr v. Miller, 146 Ill. 596, 35 N. E. 230;People v. Allen, 155 Ill. 402, 40 N. E. 350;Hamilton v. Frette, 189 Ill. 190, 59 N. E. 588.Section 51 of article 3 of the same act provides that ‘at the said April meeting, by the concurrent action of the several boards of trustees of the townships in which the district or districts affected lie, each board being petitioned as provided for in section 48 of this article, the same changes may be made in the boundaries both of districts which lie in separate townships, but adjacent to each other, and of districts formed of parts of two or more townships, as are permitted to be made in districts which lie wholly in one township.’That is, with the limitation that the districts to be affected are adjacent to each other, or that a district is formed of parts of two or more townships, the boards of trustees in the several townships, acting concurrently, may make the same changes in districts as can be made in districts lying wholly within a single township.

The first contention of counsel for appellants is that the school districts affected by the change made in the organization of this new district were not ‘adjacent’ to each other, and hence the boards of trustees of townships 9 and 10 had no jurisdiction to make the same.The position is that inasmuch as district No. 2, township 2 N., range 10 W., is not adjancent to any district affected lying in township 2, range 9, therefore there was no power in the two boards of trustees to act concurrently to make the change.On the other hand, it is insisted by counsel for the respondents that the term ‘adjacent to each other’ means no more than that the new district must be composed of adjoining or compact territory; that is, if district No. 2 adjoined district No. 1 in township 10, and the latter district adjoined district No. 2 in township 9, then the districts were adjacent to each other, within the meaning of the statute.The word ‘adjacent’ is defined by Webster and other lexicographers to mean, ‘to lie near’; ‘close, or contiguous.’It is sometimes said to be synonymous with ‘adjoining,’‘near,’‘contiguous.’In some decisions courts have held it to mean ‘in the neighborhood or vicinity of’; in others, ‘adjoining or...