People v. Colegrove

• Decision Date: 14 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22033.,22033.
• Citation: 354 Ill. 164,187 N.E. 913
• Parties: PEOPLE v. COLEGROVE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

354 Ill. 164

187 N.E. 913

PEOPLE

v.COLEGROVE.

No. 22033.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1933.

Error to Circuit Court, Christian County; William B. Wright, Judge.

John B. Colegrove was convicted of receiving a bank deposit when he knew the bank was insolvent, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Louis Greenberg, and Chester E. Lewis, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., John W. Coale, State's Atty., of Taylorville, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Harry B. Grundy, of Taylorville, of counsel), for defendant in error.

STONE, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, who was president of the John B. Colegrove & Co. State Bank, was convicted in the circuit court of Christian county under the charge of receiving a bank deposit when he knew that the bank was insolvent. He was fined twice the amount of the deposit and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than three years. He brings the cause here on the common-law record, urging that the act under which he was convicted is unconstitutional and that the court erred in not quashing the indictment and in denying his motion in arrest of judgment.

In support of his first assignment he argues that the act for the protection of bank depositors, approved June 4, 1879 (Laws of 1879, p. 113), as amended in 1903 (Laws of 1903, p. 156 [Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, § 61]), violates section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution, in that the subject of the act is not expressed in the title. He says that the act creates a new crime which is not akin to the language of the title. The purpose of the statute is to protect the public from being induced to deposit money or property with an insolvent bank. The statute is penal in its nature, yet is one enacted for the benefit of the public generally, and should receive a fair and reasonable construction. People v. Tallmadge, 328 Ill. 210, 159 N. E. 319. It is not required that the title of an act be an index of the provisions contained in it. The rule is that, when the title fairly indicates the general subject and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act so as not to mislead the General Assembly or the public, it is a sufficient compliance with section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution. People v. Tallmadge, supra; People v. Jabine, 324 Ill. 55, 154 N. E. 430;People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N. E. 354;State of Illinois v. Milauskas, 318 Ill. 198, 149 N. E. 294. The provision of a penalty for receiving deposits with knowledge that the bank is insolvent is deemed an effective means of protecting bank depositors. This contention of plaintiff in error is without merit.

It is next contended that the provision of the act imposing, in addition to a fine, imprisonment in the state penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years, is a delegation of legislative authority to the jury or court to make the law as to such additional punishment. This contention likewise is entirely without merit. In People v. Elliott, 272 Ill. 592, 112 N. E. 300, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 391, and numerous other cases, it was held that an act of the Legislature, fixing the limits of punishment to be imposed and empowering the court or jury to fix punishment within those limits, is valid.

Plaintiff in error next makes the novel contention that the act of 1879, under the provisions of subsequent legislation, is not applicable to the officers of the John B. Colegrove & Co. State Bank, in that the latter was restricted in its...