Sch. Directors of Dist. No. 13 v. People Ex Rel. Clark Roberts

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHELDON
• Citation: Sch. Directors of Dist. No. 13 v. People Ex Rel. Clark Roberts, 79 Ill. 511, 1875 WL 8673 (Ill. 1875)
• Decision Date: 30 September 1875
• Parties: SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF DISTRICT NO. 13, ETC.v.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Clark Roberts et al.

79 Ill. 511

1875 WL 8673 (Ill.)

SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF DISTRICT NO. 13, ETC.

v.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Clark Roberts et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. DAVID S. PRIDE, for the appellants.

Mr. FRANK J. CRAWFORD, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court??

This was a petition for a mandamus, on the part of the trustees of schools of T. 40, R. 13 E., in Cook county, to compel the appellants, the school directors of district 13, in the same township, to pay over to William C. Hazelton, the township treasurer of the township, the sum of $13,750, which the board of school directors had borrowed and received by the issuing and sale of bonds of the district, authorized by a vote of the people under section 47 of the general school law.

The answer of the school directors admits the borrowing and receiving by them of the money, as alleged in the petition, but denies the right of the relators to require the same to be paid to the township treasurer, setting up as a defense to the proceeding:

First, that the township treasurer had failed to qualify in this, “the said Hazelton did not take and subscribe the oath of office required of him by law to be taken and subscribed before entering upon the duties of the office of treasurer of said township;” and,

Second, a denial that the board of trustees had made the demand for the payment of the money, as alleged in the petition. A demurrer was sustained to the answer, and the defendants refusing to answer further, judgment was entered on the demurrer, and a peremptory writ of mandamus awarded, from which the board of directors took this appeal.

It is claimed that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

The statute does not, in terms, require of school trustees, treasurers, or directors, the taking of an oath of office.

It is urged that the constitution of 1870 requires such oath to be taken by township treasurers, they being nowhere, by law, exempted therefrom, and reference is made to section 25 of article 5, of the constitution. That section provides that all civil officers, except members of the General Assembly, and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the oath of office therein prescribed; and further provides, that no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification.

The oath of members of the General Assembly is prescribed in another section.

It certainly has not been understood by the legislative department that this constitutional provision is self-executing, as express provisions of law have been enacted, prescribing with particularity every essential step to be taken by each person elected or appointed to an office, the mode of election or appointment, the giving of bonds,...