Trustees of Sch. v. Hoyt
| Decision Date | 02 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15492.,15492. |
| Citation | 311 Ill. 532,143 N.E. 59 |
| Parties | TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS, etc., et al. v. HOYT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by the Trustees of Schools of Township No. 19 North, Range 10 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Champaign County, and the Board of Education of the St. Joseph Community High School District No. 305, in Champaign County, to condemn land of Norman C. Hoyt for a schoolhouse site. From a judgment condemning the land, the landowner appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Appeal from Champaign County Court; Roy C. Freeman, Judge.
Green & Palmer, of Urbana (Henry I. Green, Ores Barth, and Charles G. Howard, all of Urbana, of counsel), for appellant.
F. E. Williamson and R. E. Winkelmann, both of Urbana, and O. M. Jones and A. R. Hall, both of Danville (Williamson & Winkelmann, of Urbana, Jones & Levin, and Hall & Holaday, all of Danville, of counsel), for appellees.
The trustees of schools of township No. 19 north, range 10 east of the third principal meridian, in Champaign county, and the board of education of the St. Joseph community high school district No. 305, in Champaign county, filed a petition in the county court of that county to condemn for a schoolhouse site a tract of land owned by Norman C. Hoyt. On a trial the jury fixed the compensation to be paid at $4,900, and a judgment was rendered authorizing the school district to take possession of the land upon the payment of that sum, from which the landowner appealed.
[1][2] The appellant objected to the condemnation because, as he alleged, the petitioners had not taken the action required by law to enable them to purchase or locate a schoolhouse site. Section 127 of the School Law, when these proceedings occurred, before July 1, 1923 (Laws 1919, p. 926), authorized the board of education to purchase a site for a schoolhouse, with necessary grounds:
‘Provided, however, that it shall not be lawful for such school board of education to purchase or locate a schoolhouse site, or to purchase, build or move a schoolhouse, unless authorized by a majority of all the votes cast at an election called for such purpose in pursuance of a petition signed by not fewer than five hundred legal voters of such district, or by one-fifth of all the legal voters of such district.’
Such an election was therefore required as a basis for the authority of the petitioners to condemn, and a necessary preliminary to the election was a petition signed as required by the statute. There was a hearing by the court on the issue made by the defendant's objection, which was found in favor of the petitioners. Pleas were filed, though they were unnecessary, since the landowner may raise the question of the petitioners' right to exercise the power of eminent domain without plea or answer. The question whether the statutory conditions authorizing the exercise of the power exist is for the court to determine, and the burden of proving their existence is on the petitioner. Ward v. Minnesota & Northwestern Railroad Co., 119 Ill. 287, 10 N. E. 365;Lieberman v. Chicago Rapid Transit Railroad Co., 141 Ill. 140, 30 N. E. 544;O'Hare v. Chicago, Madison & Northern Railroad Co. 139 Ill. 151, 28 N. E. 923.
[3] The foundation of the right to call an election for the purpose of authorizing the purchase or location of a schoolhouse site is the petition required by the statute, signed by 500 legal voters, or one-fifth of the legal voters of the district, and the filing of such a petition is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power by the board of education to call the election. It was essential, therefore, that the record should show the filing of such petition. The evidence which was introduced on this question consisted of a petition bearing a number of signatures less than 500, an affidavit in regard to the signatures, and the minutes of the board of education. The petition began with the recital:
‘We, the undersigned legal voters of the St. Joseph community high school district No. 305, in Champaign county, in the state of Illinois,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Waukegan v. Stanczak
...of the general provision. School Directors of Dist. No. 3 v. Fogleman, 76 Ill. 189 (in which no election was held); Trustees of Schools v. Hoyt, 311 Ill. 532, 143 N.E. 59 (in which an election was void due to petition record defects); and Bierbaum v. Smith, 317 Ill. 147, 147 N.E. 796 (in wh......
-
Reich v. McCoy
...election will be void. People v. Hartquist, 311 Ill. 127, 142 N.E. 475;Roberts v. Eyman, 304 Ill. 413, 136 N.E. 736;Trustees of Schools v. Hoyt, 311 Ill. 532, 143 N.E. 59.People v. Opie, 301 Ill. 11, 133 N.E. 689, insofar as it holds that failure to give notice of an election called for the......
-
Chesney v. Moews
...therein cited, but the necessity of such a showing in the record is further illustrated by the very recent cases of Trustees of Schools v. Hoyt, 311 Ill. 532, 143 N. E. 59;People v. Hartquist, 311 Ill. 127, 142 N. E. 475; and Bierbaum v. Smith (No. 16600) 147 N. E. 796. In the case first ci......
-
Trustees of Sch. v. Hoyt
...others to condemn land of Norman C. Hoyt for schoolhouse site. Judgment for defendant, and petitioners appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 311 Ill. 532, 143 N. E. 59.Appeal from Champaign County Court; Roy C. Freeman, Judge.Williamson & Winkelman, of Urbana, and Jones, McIntire & Jones and Hall & ......