Rodman v. Wurzburg
| Decision Date | 18 December 1899 |
| Citation | 183 Ill. 395,55 N.E. 688 |
| Parties | RODMAN v. WURZBURG. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from probate court, McLean county; R. A. Russell, Judge.
Petition by Henry H. Rodman against George Wurzburg to contest an election. From a judgment dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Reversed.D. D. Donahue, for appellant.
Welty & Sterling, for appellee.
The parties to this suit were rival candidates for the office of school director at an election held on April 15, 1899. Fourteen votes were cast for each, and the judges of election caused the choice to be determined by lot, which resulted favorably to the appellee. Appellant filed his petition in writing for the contest of said election, on the ground that one illegal vote was cast in favor of appellee by Henry Schneider, who was not a legal voter, and that appellee received only 13 legal votes, so that there was not a tie. Summons was issued May 13, 1899, returnable to the June term of the county court on June 5th, and was served May 23, 1899. The parties appeared on the return day, when the defendant announced himself ready for trial, and thereupon filed his answer, denying that Henry Schneider was not a legal voter, and admitting the other statements of the petition. Defendant moved the court to proceed to trial at once, and petitioner objected because the issues were not made up, and the time had not expired for filing replication, and he was not ready for a hearing. The court allowed defendant's motion, and ordered petitioner to proceed to a hearing, which petitioner declined to do, whereupon the court dismissed the petition, and rendered a judgment for costs against the petitioner.
By the statute and the decisions of this court the contest of an election is governed by the rules of a chancery proceeding. The statement is to be verified by affidavit in the same manner as bills in chancery. Summons is served in the same manner. Evidence may be taken in the same manner and upon like notice, and the cause is to be tried, in all respects, as a case in chancery. Rev. St. c. 46, §§ 113-116; Talkington v. Turner, 71 Ill. 234;Dale v. Irwin, 78 Ill. 170;Kingery v. Berry, 94 Ill. 515;Lawrence Co. v. Schmaulhausen, 123 Ill. 321, 14 N. E. 255. The statute regulating the practice in courts of chancery providesthat replications shall be filed in four days after the plaintiff or his attorney shall be served with notice of answer filed, and, after replication is filed, the cause shall be deemed at issue, and stand for hearing, or, in default of filing such replication, the cause may be set for hearing upon the bill and answer. Rev. St. c. 22, §§ 28, 29. A cause is not at issue unless a replication is filed, or it is set for hearing upon the bill and answer. The party is never obliged to proceed to a hearing unless the cause is at issue, and the court cannot hear a cause upon the bill and answer unless the complainant is in default in not replying within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brents v. Smith
...to all intents and purposes chancery proceedings, subject to all the rules governing the same. Dale v. Irwin, 78 Ill. 170;Rodman v. Wurzburg, 183 Ill. 395, 55 N. E. 688;Weinberg v. Noonan, 193 Ill. 165, 61 N. E. 1022. This court held, in Dale v. Irwin, supra, that the contestant could by an......
-
Olson v. Scully
...243 Ill. 59, 90 N. E. 203;Quartier v. Dowiat, 219 Ill. 326, 76 N. E. 371;Weinberg v. Noonan, 193 Ill. 165, 61 N. E. 1022;Rodman v. Wurzburg, 183 Ill. 395, 55 N. E. 688. [4][5] The common-law rule was that the death of either party at any stage of a proceeding abated the action. People v. We......
-
Yott v. Yott
...with, except for manifest abuse, and that, in view of the conduct of the plaintiff, the suit was properly dismissed. Rodman v. Wurzburg, 183 Ill. 395, 55 N. E. 688, was an election contest governed by chancery rules, where there was a right to a speedy trial. It was held the court was not a......
-
McKinley v. McIntyre
...243 Ill. 59, 90 N. E. 203;Quartier v. Dowiat, 219 Ill. 326, 76 N. E. 371;Weinberg v. Noonan, 193 Ill. 165, 61 N. E. 1022;Rodman v. Wurzburg, 183 Ill. 395, 55 N. E. 688.' In the later case of People v. Taylor, supra, we reaffirmed and adhered to our language and holding in the Olson Case, an......