The City of Olney v. Harvey & Boyd.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5250,50 Ill. 453,99 Am.Dec. 530 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE CITY OF OLNEYv.HARVEY & BOYD. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Richland county; the Hon. RICHARD S. CANBY, Judge, presiding.
The facts are presented in the opinion of the court.
Mr. J. G. BOWMAN, for the appellant.
Mr. SILAS L. BRYAN, for the appellees.
In 1866, Harvey and Boyd, the appellees herein, brought suit against the then town (now city) of Olney, to recover a sum of money which the town had illegally required them to pay. The case came to this court, and we held the town liable, and remanded the case for another trial, the judgment in the circuit court having been in favor of the town. The case is reported in 42 Ill. 336. Before the order remanding the case was entered in this court the town of Olney had been converted, by an act of the legislature, into a city. At the June term, 1867, of the Circuit Court of Richland county, the case was re-docketed against the President and Trustees of the town of Olney, and at a subsequent day of the term, the city council of the city of Olney were substituted as defendants, notice upon the late president and trustees of the town, and upon the new mayor and city council, having been served and proved. The city council did not appear, and judgment was rendered against them.
At the next November term, it having been discovered that the city of Olney, instead of the city council, should have been made defendant, and a new notice having been served upon the mayor and council, the case was again docketed, the judgment of the June term set aside, the case submitted to a jury, and upon their verdict a judgment was rendered for the present appellees. The city did not appear either at the June or November term.
The city refused to pay the judgment thus rendered, and this mandamus was sued out to compel it to do so. The circuit court awarded a peremptory mandamus, and the city appealed.
It is insisted by counsel for appellant, that upon the dissolution or civil death of a corporation all debts due to or from it are extinguished. This is, of course, the rule. The individual corporators would not be liable unless made so by the terms of their charter. But in this case the corporation has not been destroyed. The city of Olney is the same municipality as the town of Olney. It has merely changed its machinery of government, and the titles of its officers, and is called a city instead of a town. But it is the same municipality. It consists of the same people,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cratin v. Cratin
...v. McClanahan, 52 Ala. 55; Baker v. Bancroft, 76 Ala. 414; Jennings v. Pearce, 101 Ala. 538; Cotton v. McGehee, 54 Miss. 621; Onley v. Harvey, 50 Ill. 453; 60 A. S. R. notes. The presumption in favor of proceedings of courts are indulged only in relation to those jurisdictional matters conc......
-
Cratin v. Cbatin
...v. McClanahan, 52 Ala. 55; Baker v. Bancroft, 76 Ala. 414; Jennings v. Pearce, 101 Ala. 538; Cotton v. McGehee, 54 Miss. 621; Onley v. Harvey, 50 Ill. 453; 60 A. S. R. 642, The presumption in favor of proceedings of courts are indulged only in relation to those jurisdictional matters concer......
-
Spring Creek Drainage Dist. v. Elgin, J.&E. Ry. Co.
...in such case the amount should be paid out of the treasury. Should this not be done, mandamus would lie to compel it. City of Olney v. Harvey, 50 Ill. 453, 99 Am. Dec. 530. And it seems that the judgment at law must precede the mandamus; the latter being in the nature of process of executio......
-
Kenoly v. Hawley
...74 Okla. 191, 178 P. 101; Fullerton v. Houpt, 12 Ark. 399; Chaffin et al. v. McFadden, 41 Ark. 42; Crane v. Barry, 47 Ga. 476; Olney v. Harvey, 50 Ill. 453; Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kan. 674; Harvey v. Edmonds, 68 N.C. 243; Mills v. Dixon, 6 Rich. 487; Merrill v. Martin (Ind. T.) 64 S.W. 539. S......