The City of Quincy v. Ballance

• Decision Date: 31 January 1863
• Citation: 30 Ill. 185,20 Peck 185,1863 WL 3035
• Parties: THE CITY OF QUINCY, Plaintiff in Error,v.JOSEPH M. BALLANCE, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

30 Ill. 185
1863 WL 3035 (Ill.)
20 Peck (IL) 185

THE CITY OF QUINCY, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
JOSEPH M. BALLANCE, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1863.

ERROR TO ADAMS.

The law requirtng security for costs in prosecutions under penal statutes, does not refer to prosecutions under city ordinances.

THIS was a suit by plaintiff in error before police magistrate of the city of Quincy, for violation of city ordinances regulating the sale of fresh meats in the city of Quincy.

Defendant in error moved to dismiss suit for want of a bond for costs. Motion overruled. Trial and judgment against defendant in error.

Appeal by defendant to Circuit Court.

Defendant renews motion to dismiss in Circuit Court, and cause dismissed; and judgment against plaintiff for costs of suit.

The bill of exceptions shows, that on the hearing of motion in the Circuit Court, “it was admitted that no bond for costs had been filed in this cause,”“and that said motion was made in due time before the justice of the peace, as appears by the transcript from his docket, and that no other evidence was given or offered.”

The transcript shows appearance and continuance, by consent before the making of said motion to dismiss.

The errors assigned are; dismissing suit for want of bond for costs; rendering judgment on said motion, against plaintiff for costs.

SKINNER & MARSH, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. The statute in relation to security for costs, has no application to the State, a county or city. Cities exist for governmental purposes, exercise the municipal powers delegated by the State in their charters, for public purposes of local government, and are auxiliary to the State for political and civil purposes, in maintaining public order, and exercising a part

[30 Ill. 186]

of its sovereignty. Angell on Corporations, sections 16, 18, 31, 35; Mayor of Baltimore v. Root, 8 Md. 95; McKim v. Adam, 3 Bland. Ch. R. 417; 2 Kent's Com, 275.

And by all the analogies of law, the immunities and prerogatives of the State, within the scope of their charters, apply to them. City of Chicago v. Halsey, 25 Ill. 595.

II. Ordinances of a city are not “penal statutes,” within the meaning of the statute relating to costs. Statutes, 1856, p. 275.

III. The motion for security for costs was not made till after appearance and continuance, and therefore came too late. The admission in the record refers to the transcript, and that shows motion made after appearance and continuance of cause. 14 Ill. 71; 12...