People v. Morris Ketchum Trustees
Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
Citation | 1874 WL 8790,72 Ill. 212 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISv.MORRIS KETCHUM et al. Trustees, etc. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This was an application to this court, at the suit of The People, for a writ of mandamus against the trustees of the lands granted to the Illinois Central Railroad Company.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People.
Messrs. HAY, GREENE & LITTLER, for the respondents.
This is a petition filed by the Attorney General, on behalf of the people of the State, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus against Morris Ketchum, Samuel D. Lockwood and John M. Palmer, trustees appointed under section 15 of the act to incorporate the Illinois Central Railroad Company, approved February 10, 1851. The object of the application is to compel these trustees to dispose of the unsold lands of that company, to effect which the General Assembly passed an act, approved March 28, 1873, entitled “An act to compel the trustees of the lands granted to the Illinois Central Railroad Company to execute their trust.” Sess. Laws 1873, p. 115.
The petition was filed to the last January term, and, by agreement, the venue was changed to the Southern Division. The questions arise on demurrer to the return.
A similar petition was presented to this court at the January term, 1872, which, for reasons given in the opinion of the court then filed, was refused. 62 Ill. 510.
To obviate the objections raised by this court to granting the writ, the General Assembly passed the act above cited, and we are again requested to grant the writ, and compel the sale of the unsold lands of this company.
The application is based upon the wording of section 17 of the charter of the Illinois Central Railroad Company. That section is as follows:
It is admitted the road has been completed more than ten years; that a large quantity of these lands remain unsold, and therefore the writ should be awarded. It must be remembered that the writ of mandamus is not a writ of right, demandable by the State acting through their law officer, but its issue is discretionary with the court, acting upon existing facts, and viewing the whole case with due regard to the consequences of its action.
There are very important considerations involved in this application, and which we are not at liberty to disregard. The entire legislation of the State must be looked to, and the interests of parties other than the people of the State be kept in view.
By the sixteenth section of the same charter, it was provided that, “these lands should be sold for cash in hand, or the bonds of said company at par,” and “conveyances were to be executed vesting an absolute title in fee simple to the purchasers.”
Was this the law now, was this section in full force, we should have no hesitation in awarding the writ on the showing of the law officer of the State. But, by an act of the General Assembly, in force February 28, 1854, this provision of the charter was so amended and altered as to authorize a sale of these lands upon a credit. By it, a new contract was entered into between the State and the railroad company, containing many stipulations besides the one in the first section.
Section six of the act provides, it shall take effect when accepted by a resolution of the board of directors of the company, which, it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Carlstrom v. Shurtleff
...Shurtleff, 353 Ill. 248, 187 N. E. 271;People v. Kelly, 352 Ill. 567, 186 N. E. 188. The writ of mandamus is not a writ of right. People v. Ketchum, 72 Ill. 212;People v. Adams County, 185 Ill. 288, 56 N. E. 1044;People v. City of Rock Island, 215 Ill. 488, 74 N. E. 437,106 Am. St. Rep. 179......
-
People ex rel. Mulvey v. City of Chicago
...of money claimed by them immediately prior to the filing of their suits as a basis for instituting mandamus proceedings.” In People v. Ketchum, 72 Ill. 212, it was held that the writ of mandamus is not a writ of right; that its issuance is discretionary with the court, acting upon existing ......
-
People ex rel. Dickinson v. Bd. of Trade of Chicago
...86 Ill. 283;Watch Case Co. v. Pearson, 140 Ill. 423, 31 N. E. 400,16 L. R. A. 429;People v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 62 Ill. 510;People v. Ketchum, 72 Ill. 212;People v. Lieb, 85 Ill. 484;Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill. 150;Everitt v. Commissioners, 1 S. D. 370, 47 N. W. 296; High, Extr. Rem. (3d E......
-
State ex rel. Hathorn v. United States Express Company
...v. Commissioners, 1 Whart. 1; People v. Curyea, 16 Ill. 547; People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 1, 133; People v. Illinois, 62 Ill. 510; People v. Ketchum, 72 Ill. 212; Press v. Nichols, 45 Vt. 7; Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson's Heirs, 8 Pet. 291; Belcher v. Treat, 61 Me. 577; Davis v. County, 63 Me......