Schultheis v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 02 June 1909 |
| Citation | 240 Ill. 167,88 N.E. 563 |
| Parties | SCHULTHEIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court, Cook County; W. M. McEwen, Judge.
Petition by John Schultheis against the City of Chicago and others. Judgment for defendants, and petitioner brings error. Affirmed.
W. P. Black and A. B. Chilcoat (C. D. F. Smith, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Corp. Counsel (Clyde L. Day, of counsel), for defendants in error.
This is a petition for mandamus, filed by John Schultheis in the superior court of Cook county against the city of Chicago and certain of its officers for the purpose of having his name restored to the police pay roll, from which it was dropped on March 14, 1898. The original petition was filed on March 11, 1903. Afterward an amended petition was filed. Still later an amended and supplemental petition was filed, and that was again amended. To the amended and supplemental petition as finally amended a general demurrer was sustained, whereupon petitioner elected to abide his pleading. Judgment was entered against him, and he has by writ of error brought the case directly to this court on the theory that a determination of the sufficiency of the amended and supplemental petition involves a construction of the Constitution of the state.
It is urged in support of the demurrer that it appears from the petition as finally amended that the petitioner was guilty of such laches in bringing his action as barred any right that he might otherwise have had, and this contention finds support in the case of Kenneally v. City of Chicago, 220 Ill. 485, 77 N. E. 155, which is squarely in point. Kenneally and Schultheis were both appointed policemen of the city of Chicago in 1888. The names of both were dropped from the police pay roll on the same day, March 14, 1898. Kenneally filed his original petition for mandamus on January[240 Ill. 170]24, 1900. Schultheis filed his original petition for mandamus on March 11, 1903. Kenneally filed his amended petition, to which a demurrer was sustained, and by which he elected to abide, on December 19, 1904. In the Kenneally Case we held that the appellant had been guilty of such laches as authorized the trial court to sustain the demurrer to the petition, and if that case be followed on the question of laches the judgment in the case at bar must be affirmed, as no attempt is made by the petitioner's pleading to show any excuse for the delay.
Schultheis is represented by the same counsel who represented Kenneally, and they argue that the earlier case is wrong. We have upon their insistence again examined the questions involved, and deem it necessary to notice in this opinion but one criticism of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bill v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF SCHOOL DIST. 99
...236 Ill.App.3d 967, 970, 176 Ill.Dec. 910, 602 N.E.2d 856, 857-58 (1992). In this case, defendant cites to Schultheis v. City of Chicago, 240 Ill. 167, 88 N.E. 563 (1909), for the employment of a per se six-month laches rule developed specifically for cases involving the termination of a pu......
-
People ex rel. Mulvey v. City of Chicago
...assert that the doctrine of laches is a defense which may be interposed in a court of equity only. In Schultheis v. City of Chicago, 240 Ill. 167 at page 170,88 N.E. 563,a mandamus proceeding, the court said: “It is asserted with great vigor that laches cannot be relied upon as a defense in......
-
People ex rel. Casey v. Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Illinois
...has an affirmative duty to set forth a valid excuse therefor, or the action may be barred by laches. (Schultheis v. City of Chicago (1909), 240 Ill. 167, 170, 88 N.E. 563; Haas v. Commissioners of Lincoln Park (1930), 339 Ill. 491, 503, 171 N.E. 526.) However, according to section 43(4) of ......
-
Lee v. City of Decatur
...317, 329, 142 N.E.2d 144, 149; see Casey, 69 Ill.2d at 113, 12 Ill.Dec. at 697, 370 N.E.2d at 501; Schultheis v. City of Chicago (1909), 240 Ill. 167, 170, 88 N.E. 563, 564; Clark v. City of Chicago (1908), 233 Ill. 113, 116, 84 N.E. 170, 172.) Determination of laches is left to the sound d......