People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 18 April 1901
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BROWN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

189 Ill. 619

60 N.E. 46

PEOPLE

v.BROWN et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county; G. W. Thompson, Judge.

Information by the people, in the nature of quo warranto, against John B. Brown and others, for usurping the office of members of the township board of education. From an order overruling the demurrer to defendant's plea, the people appeal. Affirmed.L. H. Hanna, State's Atty. (Kirkpatrick & Alexander and Grier & Stewart, of counsel), for the People.

J. A. McKenzie and Williams, Lawrence & Welsh (J. B. Brown, of counsel), for appellees.

HAND, J.

This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto, charging appellees with usurping and wrongfully exercising the franchise of a township high school district, and with usurping and wrongfully holding and exercising the office of members of the township board of education in township 9 N., range 2 W., Warren county. The appellees filed a plea averring that Warren county had adopted township organization; that the boundaries of the town of Roseville and township 9 N., range 2 W., Warren county, coincide and are identical; that on the first Tuesday of April, 1900, at a special election held at the opera house in Roseville, the proposition for or against establishing a township high school in said township was submitted to a vote of the people of said township, resulting in a majority vote for the proposition; and that appellees were subsequently duly elected to the office of members of the township board of education of said township, and have duly qualified and are acting as members of such court. The court having overruled a demurrer to said plea and dismissed the information, an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

It is contended by appellant that said election was not lawfully held on the first Tuesday of April, and that all action based thereon is absolutely void. It is provided by section 38 of article 3 of the school law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 1530) that ‘upon petition of not less that fifty voters of any school township, filed with the townshiptreasurer at least fifteen days preceding the regular election of trustees, it shall be the duty of said treasurer to notify the voters of said township that an election ‘For’ or ‘Against’ a township high school will be held at the said next regular election of trustees.' in section 19 of said article 3 it is provided: ‘In counties adopting township organization, in each and every township whose boundaries coincide and are identical with those of the town, as established under the township organization laws, the trustee or trustees [of schools] shall be elected at the same time, and in the same manner as the town officers.’ And in section 1 of article 6 of the township organization law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 1708) it is provided: ‘The annual town meeting, in the respective towns, for the election of town officers, and the transaction of the business of the town, shall be held on the first Tuesday of April in each year.’ Under the foregoing sections the election at which said proposition was submitted was legally held on the first Tuesday in April, 1900, unless said section 19 has been repealed by the first section of an act in force July 1, 1891, known as the ‘Australian Ballot Act’ (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 802), which is as follows: ‘That in all elections hereafter to be held in this state for public officers, except for trustees of schools, school directors, members of boards of education, officers of road districts in counties not under township organization, the voting shall be by ballots printed and distributed at public expense as hereinafter provided, and no other ballots shall be used.’

It is not claimed that section 19 is repealed by direct enactment, but it is urged that inasmuch as said section provides that trustees of schools shall be elected ‘in the same manner as the town officers,’ and the act of July 1, 1891, expressly excludes trustees of schools, and includes within its terms town officers, it becomes impossible for trustees of schools to be elected in the same manner as town officers, and that said section 19 must necessarily be abrogated. If possible, it is the duty of the court to so construe these sections that they may both stand. Repeals by implications are not favored, and a later statute will not be held to repeal a former one unless they are irreconcilable. The act of July 1, 1891, is general in character, while section 19 is special, and is intended to govern the election of trustees of schools in special cases only. The presumption always obtains that the legislature by a general law does not intend to abrogate the provisions of a prior act relating to a special subject, and that such repeal will only be effected when there are no negative words, unless it is impossible for the two acts to stand together. In Village of Ridgway v. Gallatin Co., 181 Ill. 521, 55 N. E. 146, in speaking of repeals by implication, we say (page 525, 181 Ill., and page 147, 55 N. E.): ‘Such a repeal is not favored in the law, and a later statute will never be held to repeal an earlier one unless they cannot be reconciled. It is the duty of the courts to construe them so as to avoid repeal, if such a construction can be given, and a statute will never be held to be repealed by implication if it can be avoided by any reasonable hypothesis. * * * It is also the rule that a subsequent law which is general does not abrogate or repeal a former one which is special and intended to operate upon a particular subject, and that, if the later statute does not contain negative words, it will not repeal the particular provisions of the special law on the same subject, unless it is impossible that both should be enforced.’ It is clear, under the rules as above announced, instead of holding section 19 to be repealed by the first section of the act of July 1, 1891, said sections should be construed together, to the end, if possible, that the legislative intent as therein expressed should be carried into effect. By so doing the limitation in the act of July 1, 1891, that it shall not apply to the election of trustees of schools, would be held not to apply when such election was held in pursuance of the provisions of section 19. In other words, when trustees of schools are elected at the annual township election they should be elected ‘in the same manner as the township officers,’ which would be under the Australian ballot act. The purpose of the legislature in enacting section 19 was for the convenience and accommodation of the voters of those communities wherein the town and township boundaries coincide, by permitting them to hold the school and township elections on the same day, instead of on separate days. The legislature has evidenced no intention to change such rule, and we are of...