City of Charleston v. Wiley

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Charleston v. Wiley

94 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 623

DecidedFebruary 28, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 94 Ill. App. 53 (City of Charleston v. Wiley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Charleston v. Wiley, 94 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 623 (Ill. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Coles County, awarding a writ of mandamus, compelling the members of the city council of Charleston to pass an ordinance disconnecting certain territory from the city in accordance with a petition of the owners of forty acres of land situated within the corporate limits of the city.

The first objection raised is that the only defendant to the petition is the city of Charleston, and the members of the city council are not made parties. Where the object of a writ of mandamus is to compel the passage of an ordinance in performance of a duty, it is not necessary to make the individual members of a city council parties to the petition. (Village of Glencoe v. The People ex rel. John A. Owen, 78 Ill. 382; The People ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Getzendaner et al., 137 Ill. 234.) When the writ is granted, it should be served, of course, upon the individual members.

Aside from that question the case is, in all essential features, like that presented to the Supreme Court in Young et al. v. Carey et al., 184 Ill. 613. Under the authority of that case the order of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Coles County, awarding a writ of mandamus, compelling the members of the city council of Charleston to pass an ordinance disconnecting certain territory from the city in accordance with a petition of the owners of forty acres of land situated within the corporate limits of the city.

The first objection raised is that the only defendant to the petition is the city of Charleston, and the members of the city council are not made parties. Where the object of a writ of mandamus is to compel the passage of an ordinance in performance of a duty, it is not necessary to make the individual members of a city council parties to the petition. (Village of Glencoe v. The People ex rel. John A. Owen, 78 Ill. 382; The People ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Getzendaner et al., 137 Ill. 234.) When the writ is granted, it should be served, of course, upon the individual members.

Aside from that question the case is, in all essential features, like that presented to the Supreme Court in Young et al. v. Carey et al., 184 Ill. 613. Under the authority of that case the order of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-charleston-v-wiley-illappct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack