People ex rel. Sch. Dist. No. 88 v. Holland

• Decision Date: 12 November 1943
• Docket Number: Nos. 27268-27270.,s. 27268-27270.
• Citation: 51 N.E.2d 266,384 Ill. 277
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 88 v. HOLLAND, Judge, et al. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 88 v. IVIE. SAME v. DUNN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

384 Ill. 277

51 N.E.2d 266

PEOPLE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 88

v.HOLLAND, Judge, et al.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 88

v.IVIE.

SAME

v.DUNN et al.

Nos. 27268-27270.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 21, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1943.

Mandamus by the People, on relation of School District No. 88, against Eugene J. Holland, Judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago, and others, to compel the Judge to expunge certain orders entered by him in two actions in which relator was plaintiff. From a judgment denying the writs, relator appeals. Actions by School District No 88 against Howard S. Ivie and against Clara Dunn and others to recover delinquent taxes. From certain orders entered in such cases, the School District appeals. The appeals were consolidated.

In mandamus case, judgment affirmed. In tax cases, appeals dismissed.Appeal from Superior Court, Cook county; Peter H. Schwaba, judge.

Appeals from Municipal Court of Chicago; John R. McSweeney, Judge.

Thomas Tighe and Charles Liebman, both of Chicago (Richard F. Locke, of Glenn Ellyn, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Marshall V. Kearney, of Chicago, Joseph Burke and John T. Fitzgerald, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

MURPHY, Justice.

Causes numbered 27268, 27269 and 27270 have been consolidated for opinion. Case No. 27268 is an appeal from an order entered in the superior court of Cook county in a mandamus action. The other two are appeals from orders entered in actions at law in the municipal court of Chicago. In No. 27268 the relator, School District No. 88, of Cook county, prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding Eugene J. Holland, a judge of the municipal court, to expunge certain orders entered by him in No. 27269 and 27270.

In School District No. 88 v. Kooper, 380 Ill. 68, 43 N.E.2d 542, this court sustained the right of a common school district to maintain actions at law to recover its share of delinquent real estate taxes. After the opinion in said case was filed, School District No. 88 employed Thomas Tighe and Charles Liebman, attorneys at law, to represent it and institute suits for the recovery of delinquent taxes. There was a separate agreement of employment as to each particular property owner and said attorneys filed ten or more cases pursuant to such employment. While they were pending the State's Attorney of Cook county filed a motion in each of said cases praying that the names of Tighe and Liebman be stricken and that his appearance as attorney for the school district be noted. One of the cases in which such order was entered was School District No. 88 v. Howard S. Ivie, which, in this court, is numbered 27269; another is School District No. 88 v. Clara Dunn et al., numbered 27270. On February 17, 1943, the Ivie and Dunn cases were called for trial and, no one appearing for the school district or the State's Attorney, said cases were dismissed for want of prosecution. On March 4, the school district filed a notice of appeal in each case. The following day the State's Attorney, in his official capacity but not as attorney for the school district, entered into a stipulation with the defendant taxpayer in each case, whereby it was agreed that the order entered March 4, 1943, dismissing each of said cases should be vacated and that each case should be reassigned for trial. It appears that both of said cases are now docketed and pending in the municipal court.

After the entry of the foregoing orders, the school district, as relator in the name of the People, asked leave of this court to file an original mandamus action against Eugene J. Holland, a judge of the municipal court, and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Attorney of Cook county. Leave was denied and thereafter the school district as relator filed a petition for mandamus in the superior court of Cook county against the judge and the State's Attorney. Respondents moved to dismiss relator's petition on the grounds that the petition did not state a cause of action, that no breach of official jury by respondents was pleaded and that it did not show respondent Holland had exceeded his jurisdiction. The...