Schuchardt v. People Ex Rel. Frank H. Hall.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1881 |
| Citation | 99 Ill. 501,39 Am.Rep. 34,1881 WL 10572 |
| Parties | HELEN A. SCHUCHARDTv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Frank H. Hall. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. OLIVER A. HARKER, Judge, presiding.
This was a proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto, on the relation of Frank H. Hall, against Helen A. Schuchardt, in the Union circuit court. A petition was filed, in which petitioner states that he is a resident of the county of Union and State of Illinois, and asks leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto against Helen A. Schuchardt, requiring her to show by what authority she claims to exercise the office of master in chancery of the county of Union, and State of Illinois.
Said petition further states, that she has held said office for more than eight months, and still continues to hold and execute said office, without any warrant of right whatever; that she intruded herself into said office on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1880; that she is a female, and is not now and has never been licensed as a practicing attorney at law; that she has no knowledge of the law nor of the duties appertaining to said office, but employs men and attorneys to perform the duties of said office.
Said petition concludes by asking a rule, on the facts stated, upon Helen A. Schuchardt, to show cause why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against her for usurping, intruding into and unlawfully holding and exercising said office of master in chancery.
Upon this, summons was issued, returnable to the March term, 1880, of the Union circuit court, and served upon the appellant; and afterwards, at the March term, 1880, of the Union circuit court, the State's attorney for that county filed an information, on the relation of Frank H. Hall, giving the court to understand that Helen A. Schuchardt, of the county of Union and State of Illinois, had, for more than eight months past, unlawfully held and executed, and still continues to hold and execute unlawfully, without any warrant of right, the office of master in chancery of said county. Said information further states that said Helen A. Schuchardt is a woman over the age of twenty-one years, a feme sole, of liberal education, a good accountant, and a ready and good writer, yet she is not and never has been a practicing lawyer, and for the reason she is a woman, she is now and ever has been ineligible under the law to the office of master in chancery. Information then concludes with usual prayer.
Next follow the pleas, filed the 30th of April, A. D. 1880, to the information. The first plea states, that on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1879, by an order of the circuit court then in session in the county of Union and State of Illinois, Helen A. Schuchardt was duly and lawfully appointed master in chancery of said Union county, from the 16th day of June, A. D. 1879, for and during the term of two years, ending on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1881, which said order was then and there in open court duly entered of record, and duly signed by John Dougherty, one of the judges of the circuit court of the State of Illinois, and the presiding judge of the Union county circuit court, which said order of appointment is set out in full in said plea.
The plea further avers, that in compliance with said order, she did, on the said 16th day of June, execute and file bond, in $5000, with good and sufficient sureties, which bond is set out in full in said plea, together with its approval. Said plea further avers, that after the filing and approval of the bond she took the oath of office as such master in chancery, which is set out in full in said plea.
The plea then concludes by stating, that by virtue of said appointment she has held the office of master in chancery since June 16, 1879, and still holds the same, as she lawfully might, without this, that she has usurped said office, and concludes with a verification.
The second plea is in precisely the same words as the first plea, up to and including the oath of office, when said plea concludes as follows:
General demurrer was filed to each of these pleas, and sustained by the court. The respondent excepted, and, electing to stand by her pleas, judgment of ouster and for costs was rendered against her. From this judgment she appealed to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, and that cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ennesser v. Hudek
... ... In Schuchardt v. People, 99 Ill. 501, it was said: The origin and duties ... ...
-
State v. Armijo
...So in the case of the office of sexton.” Other English cases will be found cited in the note in 38 L. R. A. 208, and note to Schuchardt v. People, 39 Am. Rep. 34. We shall not attempt to review them all. The common-law rule upon the subject, deducible from the cases, may be stated as follow......
-
State v. Davidson
...take part in the government of the state, and they could hold no offices except parish offices. Robinson's Case, 131 Mass. 376; Schuchardt v. People, 99 Ill. 501. Although a woman may be a citizen, she is not entitled, by virtue of her citizenship, to take any part in the government, either......
-
Bottom v. City of Edwardsville
...in England the masters in chancery were learned and commonly doctors of the civil law, in this state, under the decision in Schuchardt v. People, 99 Ill. 501, a master need not be learned in law or a lawyer. He is a mere assistant of the chancellor, whose duties and powers are, we think, ma......