People v. the Common Council of The City of Chicago.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel.SOUTH PARK COMMISSIONERS,v.THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Application for mandamus.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. BECKWITH, AYER & KALES, for the relators.
A municipal corporation is a mere political agency, created and endowed with certain public functions for more conveniently carrying out the objects of government. It exists only for public purposes, and can hold and own property only for such purposes; and these are liable at any time to be so modified by legislation as to render the property no longer available. The State retains complete authority to mould and change the corporate organization, to enlarge or diminish its powers, and superintend and control its property and effects, and to abolish it at pleasure, as the public exigencies may require.
County of Richland v. County of Lawrence, 12 Ill. 1; Trustees of Schools v. Tatman, 13 Ill. 30; The People v. Springfield, 25 Ill. 187; Keithsburg v. Frick, 34 Ill. 405; East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co. 10 How. 535; State v. St. Louis Co. 34 Mo. 572; Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 29 Vt. 19.
A municipal corporation can exercise no powers except such as have been delegated to it by the legislature, and whatever the legislature may permit it to do, with a view to the general benefit, it may compel it to do, whether its citizens are willing or not.
Sharpless v. Mayor, etc. 21 Penn. St. 166; Kirby v. Shaw,19 Penn. St. 258; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wen. 65; Guilford v. Supervisors, etc. 18 Barb. 615; Same case, 13 N. Y. 143; People v. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 551; People v. Power, 25 Ill. 187; Shaw v. Dennis, 5 Gilm. 405; Layton v. New Orleans, 12 La. An. 515; Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Monroe, 338; Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen, 500.
Mr. S. A. IRVIN and Mr. E. A. STORRS, for the respondents.
The South Park Commissioners, as constituted and appointed, and with the duties imposed and the powers conferred, and as imposed and conferred, are not entitled to determine what amount of city bonds ought to be issued by the mayor and comptroller of the city of Chicago, for the purpose of purchasing and improving lands selected by the commissioners, for a public park in the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake, nor are they entitled to issue the bonds of the city for such purpose.
The act of March 10, 1869, only contemplates the purchase of land for, and the creation of, a city or municipal park.
The act of Feb. 24, 1869, entitled “An Act to provide for the location and maintenance of a park for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake,” does not either create or establish a park for the city of Chicago, and for which bonds of the city may be issued as contemplated in the act of March 10, 1869.
While the voters inhabiting the territory known and designated as the town of South Chicago, did, under the provisions of section 18, of the act of Feb. 24, 1869, elect to locate and establish the South Park, the election was not held under the provisions of the city charter, nor did they so vote as citizens of that part of the municipal territory known as the South Division of said city. That act only recognizes the political organizations, or municipalities, designated as towns or townships, undertownship organization. The issue and appropriation of bonds to the South Park would not be for corporate purposes, so far as the city of Chicago is concerned, and would be in violation of Sec. 5, Art. 9, of the constitution in that it permits a portion of the voters of the city, and the voters of the towns of Hyde Park and Lake, to impose a tax on the whole city.
This is an application for a mandamus, by the South Park Commissioners, to compel the Common Council of the city of Chicago, forthwith, to proceed and determine with all reasonable diligence and good faith, what amount of city bonds ought justly and equitably be issued by the mayor and comptroller of the city for the purpose of purchasing and improving the lands selected by the relators for a public park, to equalize the amount already expended from the city treasury in or upon Lincoln Park for extension or improvement, as contemplated and required by the act of the general assembly of this State, approved March 10, 1869, entitled “An Act to equalize amount of money expended for parks in North, South and West Chicago.”
That act is as follows:
WHEREAS, The city of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Bd. of Trs. of Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
...are People v. Salomon, 51 Ill. 37;People v. Brislin, 80 Ill. 423;Dunham v. People, 96 Ill. 331;People v. Morgan, 90 Ill. 558;People v. City of Chicago, 51 Ill. 58;Cornell v. People, 107 Ill. 372. A careful examination of these cases will show that the power to assess and collect taxes for c......
-
Morgan v. Schusselle
...language, the Legislature cannot compel a town to incur a debt against its will. People ex rel. v. Mayor, supra; People ex rel. v. City of Chicago, 51 Ill. 58;Marshall v. Silliman, 61 Ill. 218; Updike v. Wright, supra; Decker v. Hughes, 68 Ill. 33;Gaddis v. Richland County, 92 Ill. 119;Chic......
-
State ex rel. Wright v. Standford
... ... taxes for the purposes of any county, city, town, or other ... municipal corporation, but may by law ... affecting the people and property of the State generally, the ... legislative ... Taxation (2 Ed.), p. 688; People v. Com. Council of ... Detroit, 28 Mich. 288, 233; Supervisors v. the ... Wider, 53 Ill. 305; People v ... Mayor, etc., Chicago, 51 Ill. 31; People v ... Salomon, 51 Ill. 31; ... ...
-
The Bd. of Supervisors of Kendall County v. People Ex Rel. Commissioners of Highways of Bristol.
... ... 66; The People v. Power, 20 Ill. 187; Harris v. Whiteside Co., Chicago Legal News, p. 93, Nov. 25, 1882; Logan Co. v. Lincoln, 81 Ill ... ...