People ex rel. Stuckart v. Culver
| Decision Date | 19 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 11721.,11721. |
| Citation | 117 N.E. 1044,281 Ill. 401 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STUCKART, County Collector, v. CULVER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; D. T. Smiley, Judge.
Proceedings by the People, on the relation of Henry Stuckart, County Collector, against Morton T. Culver, for sale of property for delinquent special assessments. From a judgment for the property owner, the County Collector appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., and George I. Hicks, both of Chicago, for appellant.
Morton T. Culver, of Chicago, pro se.
The people, on the relation of Henry Stuckart, county collector of Cook county, made application to the county court of that county for judgment and order of sale against the property of Morton T. Culver, appellee, for certain delinquent installments of special assessments levied for public improvements in the village of Glencoe, a municipal corporation operating under a special charter adopted in 1869. Appellee objected to the application on the ground that the county court of Cook county, in entering the several judgments of confirmation, acted without jurisdiction, for the reason that no officer of the village of Glencoe was directed by the several ordinances providing for the making of the improvements to file the petitions for confirmation of the assessments; that the person so directed or designated by the several ordinances was not an officer of the village of Glencoe, and the village of Glencoe had not, at the time of passing the several ordinances for such improvements, created the office of village attorney in and for said village. It appears that the various petitions were filed in the name of the village either by the village attorney or by the attorney of the village of Glencoe, and in each instance was signed by the person purporting to be the officer, authorized and directed in the ordinance to file the petition. Evidence was heard by the court, the objection was sustained and judgment denied.
The charter of the village of Glencoe did not expressly provide for the election or appointment of a village attorney,but did authorize the appointment of such other officers and agents not therein named as the council might deem necessary and that their duties should be prescribed. It is the contention of appellee that a petition for the levy of a special assessment for the making of a local improvement must be filed in the name of the municipality by the officer designated in the ordinance for the improvement, or by resolution, and that as the charter of the village of Glencoe did not provide for the election or appointment of a village attorney, it must be presumed, in the absence of affirmative proof to the contrary, that there was no such officer, and therefore the various petitions filed in the name of the village of Glencoe by the village attorney were not filed by an officer of the village and conferred no jurisdiction upon the court in which they were presented. It is true, as appellee contends, that this court will take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharp v. Sharp
...on the face of the record in order to furnish the basis of such collateral attack, and cannot be shown by proof aliunde. People v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N. E. 1044;People v. Martin, 243 Ill. 284, 90 N. E. 699;Thompson v. People, 207 Ill. 334, 69 N. E. 842;Rivard v. Gardner, 39 Ill. 125.......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...of proof from its records, its decrees cannot be attacked collaterally, as its jurisdiction will be presumed. People ex rel. Stuckart v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N.E. 1044; Forrest v. Fey, 218 Ill. 165, 75 N.E. 789, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 740. In case of collateral attack all presumptions are in f......
-
People ex rel. Peterson v. Omen
...relied on as a defense in a proceeding in the county court for judgment and order of sale for delinquent assessments. People v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N. E. 1044. There is no proof in this record as to these two improvements being of such a nature that they ought to be made a part of one......
-
Cullen v. Stevens
...of proof from its records, its decrees cannot be attacked collaterally, as its jurisdiction will be presumed. People ex rel. Stuckart v. Culver, 281 Ill. 401, 117 N.E. 1044;Forrest v. Fey, 248 Ill. 165, 75 N.E. 789, 1 L.R.A., N.S., 740, 109 Am.St.Rep. 249. In case of collateral attack all p......