People ex rel. Weber v. Ritscher

• Decision Date: 22 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 14313.,14313.
• Citation: 301 Ill. 40,133 N.E. 666
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. WEBER et al. v. RITSCHER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

301 Ill. 40

133 N.E. 666

PEOPLE ex rel. WEBER et al.

v.RITSCHER et al.

No. 14313.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1921.

Quo warranto by the People, on relation of Frank J. Weber and others, against A. E. Ritscher and others, charging the respondents with usurping the office of members of the board of education of a community high school district. From a judgment setting aside the order granting leave to file the information, relators appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Norman L. Jones, judge.

Carl E. Robinson, State's Atty., and Thompson & Thompson, all of Jacksonville, for appellants.

Wilson & Butler, of Jacksonville, for appellees.

CARTER, J.

This is a quo warranto proceeding brought by the state's attorney of Morgan county on the relation of certain persons against appellees, charging them with usurping the offices of members of the board of education of Meredosia community high school district No. 125. The relators claimed in their petition that the territory to be included within said district was not so described in the proceedings to organize the district that the boundaries of the district could be located by a surveyor. Certain property owners made affidavits in support of the petition for information in the nature of quo warranto, setting forth the reasons why the description was not sufficiently definite and accurate, and leave was granted to file an information against appellees. Later the court entered a rule on respondents to show cause why they should not be required to answer the petition. During the same term the court set the cause for hearing, and before the hearing respondents filed an answer, in which they alleged that the description of the district was sufficiently definite and accurate, and affidavits were filed in support of the answer. Thereafter, on the date for which the hearing was set, the respondents moved the court to set aside the order granting leave to file the information, and in support of the motion alleged that since the information had been filed the Legislature had passed a bill, which had become a law, whereby the organization of Meredosia community high school district had been validated. Thereupon, on June 1, 1921, the trial court entered an order setting aside the leave theretofore granted to file the information. From the judgment setting aside the order granting leave to file the information petitioners excepted and prayed an appeal to this court.

Appellants argue that the court erred in sustaining respondents' motion to set aside the leave granted relators to file the information, that the reasons given in the petition, considered with the answer and accompanying affidavits, show that leave was properly granted, and that the trial court in setting aside the order did not follow the rules laid down by this court in People v. Union Elevated Railway Co., 263 Ill. 32, 105 N. E. 12, Ann, Cas. 1915C, 388; People v. Union Elevated Railroad Co., 269 Ill. 212, 110 N. E. 1;People v. City of Chicago, 270 Ill. 180, 10 N. E. 366, and People v. Wanner, 276 Ill. 460, 114 N. E. 1015.

Counsel for appellees argue that the record in this case contains no bill of exceptions or stenographic report; that none of the errors assigned and relied upon by appellants can be considered by this court; that it is an elementary proposition that motions and rulings are not a part of the record unless made so by a bill of exceptions or stenographic report; that this rule was laid down by this court in a somewhat similar case in People v. Cowen, 283 Ill. 308, 312, 119 N. E. 335, 337, where the court said:

‘Appellants have assigned error on the court's ruling on their purported motions to set aside the order granting leave to appellee to file the information and to abate the suit. Appellants cannot question in this court the court's ruling upon either one of said motions, for the reason that there is no bill of exceptions or stenographic report signed by the judge and filed with this record. Motions and rulings thereon must be incorporated either in a bill of exceptions or stenographic report and signed by the judge of the lower court before they can become a part of the record. Before the common-law record can be enlarged and added to, there must be had and signed by the presiding judge such bill of exceptions or stenographic report. [Citing authorities.] Recitals in the judgment order of the court and suggestions of counsel in their brief and argument that certain rulings were made on motions, supported by affidavits, are not...