People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 51 Ill. 177,1869 WL 5296 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel.WILLIAM GREENv.ARTHUR A. SMITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This was a petition for MANDAMUS upon an agreed state of facts.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. RICHMOND, EPLER, WHITNEY & INGERSOLL, for the relator. Mr. H. E. DUMMER and Mr. H. B. MCCLURE, for the respondent.
By an act of the legislature, approved February 14, 1867, the people of Cass county were authorized to vote upon the removal of their county seat, and it was provided that any citizen who should vote at said election might contest it, by giving notice in writing of his intention so to do, to any other citizen who had voted on the opposite side. It was further provided, that “said contest shall be conducted in compliance with existing laws of this State with reference to the contest of elections for county officers, in all respects, so far as the same may be applicable.” The vote having been taken, a contest of this character was heard, first, before three justices of the peace, and afterwards, by appeal, before the circuit court, as directed by the statute to which reference is made in the act. The circuit court, having pronounced judgment, declined to sign a bill of exceptions, and this is an application to us for a writ of mandamus requiring the judge to do so.
The statute in regard to the contest of elections for county officers, provides, that the decision of the circuit court shall be final, and in the case of Moore v. Mayfield, 47 Ill. 167, we held this language denied to the parties the right of having such decision reviewed in this court. This is decisive of the question before us. The proceeding is purely statutory. Without the aid of the act this contest could not have been brought in this form before the circuit court, and the jurisdiction can be exercised only subject to the limitations of the act. The proceeding is to be of the same character with contests in regard to the election of county officers, and such contests must terminate with the decision of the circuit court. A different rule can not be applied here.
Mandamus refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Gass
... ... State ex rel. Anderton v. Kempf, 69 Wis. 470, 2 Am ... St. Rep. 753, 34 N.W. 226; Com. v. Allen, 70 Pa ... 465; State ex rel. Smith v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 240, 8 ... So. 1; People ex rel. Swift v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 240, ... 22 P. 1039; Dawson v. Superior Ct. 158 Cal. 73, 110 ... ...
-
Devous v. Gallatin Cnty.
...action at law or a suit in equity, but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law. Moore v. Mayfield, 47 Ill. 167;People v. Smith, 51 Ill. 177;Douglas v. Hutchinson, 183 Ill. 323, 55 N. E. 628;Brueggeman v. Young, 208 Ill. 181, 70 N. E. 292. It is not, therefore, a proceedin......
-
Allerton v. Hopkins
...be final, and that, in the act in question, they had done so; and the writ of error was dismissed. And in the subsequent case of People v. Smith, 51 Ill. 177, a like decision was made, and it was said by Mr. Justice Lawrence, speaking for the court: ‘The proceeding is purely statutory. With......
-
Brueggemann v. Young
...of sheriff, it was held the proceeding was purely statutory, and was not a ‘case’ within the meaning of the Constitution. And in People v. Smith, 51 Ill. 177, it was held the contest of an election was purely statutory, and without the aid of a statute it could not be brought before the cir......