Voss v. O'Connell

• Decision Date: 21 December 1911
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. VOSS et al. v. O'CONNELL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

252 Ill. 304

96 N.E. 1008

PEOPLE ex rel. VOSS et al.

v.O'CONNELL et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1911.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Ben M. Smith, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by the People, on the relation of William D. Voss and others, against James D. O'Connell and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, dismissing a writ of error from a judgment for relators, respondents appeal on a certificate of importance. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Fyffe & Adcock, for appellants.

Hoyne, O'Connor & Irwin, for appellees.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The appellants sued out a writ of error from the Appellate Court for the First District to bring before that court for review the record of a mandamus proceeding in the superior court of Cook county, and assigned errors upon the record certified and returned by the clerk of the superior court. The Appellate Court refused to consider the errors assigned, and dismissed the writ of error, on the ground that the appellants had no right to the writ, because they had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit and were not affected by the judgment. The Appellate Court granted a certificate of importance and an appeal to this court.

The appellees, William D. Voss, Robert J. Blaney, John J. Gavin, and John Q. Reilly, filed their petition for mandamus in the superior court, and the amended petition made the city of Chicago, the civil service commissioners, the superintendentof police, the city comptroller, the appellants (34 police officers), and 10 other policemen, defendants. The amended petition represented that the petitioners were policemen of the city of Chicago; that prior to November 9, 1906, the civil service commissioners, in the classification of positions in the police department, had kept three separate lists for detective sergeants, patrol sergeants, and desk sergeants; that Voss, Blaney, and Gavin had taken promotional examinations for the position of desk sergeant, and secured a percentage which entitled them to be placed on the eligible list for that position, which was done; that Reilly had taken a promotional examination for the position of patrol sergeant, and secured a percentage which entitled him to be placed on that eligible list, which was done; that on said November 9, 1906, the civil service commissioners adopted a resolution reciting that all of the sergeants in the three lists were in the same rank, grade, or division of the service, and all received the same compensation, and the needs of the service would be better conserved by having only one list; that the secretary was ordered to make a single list of desk sergeants, detective sergeants, and patrol sergeants, and the persons on the three lists should rank in the consolidated register or list in the order of said percentages; that a consolidation was made and a single list prepared; that the consolidated list was made by giving to each person who had passed an examination on either of the three lists the position on the consolidated list to which his percentage entitled him; that the examination for the different lists had been upon a different basis, and gave different weight to different features of the examination; that the effect of the consolidation of the three lists was to put others before the petitioners in the consolidated list, and prevent the certification and appointment of the petitioners by certifying others ahead of them with higher percentages; that 45 other persons, including the 34 appellants, had been certified and appointed from the consolidated list; that, if the consolidation had not been made, the petitioners would have been certified and appointed to positions of the rank or grade for which they, respectively, took the examinations, but by reason of the consolidation the others were certified and appointed ahead of them; and that the consolidation was unlawful and void, and should be set aside. The prayer was for a peremptory writ commanding the civil service commissioners to vacate and set aside the order of consolidation; the general superintendent of police to notify, in writing, the civil service commissioners of all vacancies existing or created since November 9, 1906, in the separate lists in the positions known as desk sergeant, patrol sergeant, and detective sergeant; the civil service commissioners to certify the names eligible for promotion from the separate lists as they existed prior to the order for consolidation, and to certify the names of Voss, Blaney, and Gavin for the position of desk sergeant and Reilly for the position of patrol sergeant; the general superintendent of police to promote them upon such certification, and notify the civil service commissioners of their promotion and appointment; and the city comptroller to place their names on the pay roll of the city for such positions.

The record is in a most confused condition, and it is difficult to make any intelligible statement of its contents. It shows, however, that on February 15, 1908, the court overruled a demurrer of the city, and on February 17, 1908, overruled a demurrer of certain officers, leaving another demurrer, and perhaps other pleadings, undisposed of, and ordered the peremptory writ as prayed for, with a judgment for costs...