People ex rel. Wilcox v. Drainage Com'rs of Union Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Pana & Assumption

• Decision Date: 20 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 11548.,11548.
• Citation: 282 Ill. 514,118 N.E. 742
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. WILCOX et al. v. DRAINAGE COM'RS OF UNION DIST. NO. 1 OF TOWNS OF PANA AND ASSUMPTION.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

282 Ill. 514

118 N.E. 742

PEOPLE ex rel. WILCOX et al.

v.DRAINAGE COM'RS OF UNION DIST. NO. 1 OF TOWNS OF PANA AND ASSUMPTION.

No. 11548.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; J. C. McBride, Judge.

Quo warranto proceedings by the People, on the relation of W. O. Wilcox and others, against the Drainage Commissioners of Union District No. 1 of the Towns of Pana and Assumption. From a judgment of ouster, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Taylor & Taylor and W. B. McBride, all of Taylorville, for appellants.

John E. Hogan, of Taylorville, and Brown & Burnside, of Vandalia, for appellees.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

This is the same proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto which was before this court on a former appeal from the circuit court of Christian county wherein the judgment of the circuit court was reversed for error of the court in refusing to direct a verdict of guilty. People v. Barber, 265 Ill. 316, 106 N. E. 798. Upon the cause being reinstated in the circuit court the information was amended by leave of court, and to the amended information the defendants filed three pleas: The first a disclaimer of any right to exercise jurisdiction over certain lands described in the plea; the second a plea of res judicata by the original judgment of the circuit court as to the owners of lands who did not join in the appeal to this court; the third a plea of justification as to the lands not included in the first and second pleas, alleging that the owners had made the connection with the ditches of the district required by the statute and thereby made voluntary application to have their lands annexed. As to the first plea of disclaimer the relators moved for a judgment of ouster, but no judgment was entered. To the second plea the relators filed a demurrer, which was overruled, and they then filed a replication settingforth the decision of this court on the appeal, and to that replication the defendants demurred. The demurrer was overruled and the defendants elected to stand by the demurrer, whereupon the relators asked for judgment on the lands described in that plea, but none was entered. As to the third plea of justification for the annexation of the lands not described in the first and second pleas, the relators replied traversing the allegations of the plea, and also filed a replication that a portion of the lands of the relators, prior to the attempted annexation, had been organized into another drainage district. Issues were joined and submitted to a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict of guilty, and judgment of ouster was entered accordingly as to the lands described in the third plea. This appeal was from that judgment.

The judgment of ouster was only as to the lands described in the third plea, and did not include the lands described in the disclaimer nor in the plea of res judicata, and there being no final judgment as to those lands, there is no question before the court on this appeal as to them. There must be a final judgment which settles the rights of the parties in respect to the subject-matter of the suit and concludes them until it is reversed or set aside to authorize an appeal to this court (Keel v. Bently, 15 Ill. 228;Cunningham v. Loomis, 17 Ill. 555); and the refusal of the judge to enter a final judgment does not justify an appeal from an interlocutory order (Brodhead v. Minges, 198 Ill. 513, 64 N. E. 998).

The appellants have again cited authorities alleged to hold that the action of drainage commissioners in annexing lands can only be set aside where fraud is alleged and proved, and fraud not having been alleged either in the information or replications, it is contended that the court erred in directing a verdict. That question was considered and decided on the former appeal, and is not now open to review.

The appellants also contend that the court has no power to direct a verdict in a proceeding by quo warranto because it is a criminal prosecution. While it is a substitute for the ancient writ and retains the character of a criminal prosecution to the extent that the proceeding...