The City of Chicago v. People Ex Rel. Henry B. Miller.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8767,80 Ill. 384 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF CHICAGOv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Henry B. Miller. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county.
Mr. JAMES GOGGIN, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN M. ROUNTREE, for the People.
The county court of Cook county rendered a judgment against certain lands for the taxes of 1874, on the application of the collector, and the city appeals to this court. The lands are held in the name of the city, and exclusively for the use of the public schools therein. The city has the sole charge of public schools within its limits, and these lands were purchased by the city on the foreclosure of mortgages taken to secure loans of money arising from the sale of the 16th section in township 39 north, in range 14 east of the third principal meridian, and which had been donated by the general government for school purposes. The lands were not leased by the city nor used with a view to profit, and there are no school houses on them.
By the 6th section, clause 1, of the act of Congress of the 18th of April, 1818, (3 Stats. at Large, p. 428,) it was enacted that, “the section numbered 16 in every township, and when such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the State, for the use of the inhabitants of such township, for the use of schools.”
The 16th section was sold and the money was loaned for school purposes, and, by the foreclosure of mortgages to secure the loan of the same, the title was acquired by the city, and it is held for public school purposes.
By an act approved on the 15th of January, 1825, R. S. 1833, p. 560, sec. 19, the Auditor and Secretary of State were, under the direction of the Governor, made commissioners of the school fund. On the 22d of January, 1829, the General Assembly passed an act authorizing the county commissioners to appoint a school commissioner in their respective counties, and the same act authorized him, in the mode therein prescribed, to sell the 16th section and loan the money received therefor, and to pay the interest received thereon, to the trustees of schools of the respective townships. The law in this regard has remained substantially unaltered to the present time.
No act of the General Assembly has ever granted the title to the school property and fund irrevocably to any body of persons. They have created corporate bodies to handle and control the fund for the use of the people, but that body has not parted with the power to control the fund in any mode they may choose, for the use of schools. They could, if disposed, deprive those to whom its management is intrusted, of the fund, and entrust it to others. Whilst the increase of the fund should be expended in the support of schools, the manner or the agency employed may be at all times controlled or changed by the State at pleasure. The State is virtually a trustee of the fund, for the use of the people, and the municipalities and officers are but the agencies employed by the State in executing the trust. But the State has the power to resume the fund and use it for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd.
...for the use of the people, it nevertheless has power to resume the fund and to use it for the purposes designated. City of Chicago v. People, 80 Ill. 384 [(1875)]. Id. at 382, 159 N.E. 811 (italics added). Under this precedent, as a matter of law, the property of UI is the property of the s......
-
People ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Illinois v. Barrett
...university for the use of the people, it nevertheless has power to resume the fund and to use it for the purposes designated. City of Chicago v. People, 80 Ill. 384.’ It has no employees. Its employees are employees of the State. People ex rel. Redman v. Board of Trustees, 283 Ill. 494, 119......
-
Betts v. Comm'rs of the Land Office
...The title to the land is in the state, and the board is merely a governmental agency of the state, which is trustee. City of Chicago v. People ex rel. Miller, 80 Ill. 384; Jernigan, Treas., v. Finley, Comptroller, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S.W. 24; Knox County v. Hunolt, 110 Mo. 67, 19 S.W. 628. The ......
-
State v. Salt Lake County
... ... Atty., both of Salt Lake City, for appellants ... Joseph ... Chez, ... (above quoted), we said in State ex rel. Richards v ... Armstrong, 17 Utah 166, 53 ... 420, 67 P.2d 989; ... Hughes County v. Henry et al. , 48 S.D. 98, ... 202 N.W. 286; State ... The ... case of City of Chicago v. People ex rel ... Miller , 80 Ill. 384, is ... ...