Doolittle v. Galena & Chicago Union Railroad

14 Ill. 381
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 14 Ill. 381 (Doolittle v. Galena & Chicago Union Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doolittle v. Galena & Chicago Union Railroad, 14 Ill. 381 (Ill. 1853).

Opinion

Treat, C. J.

The common law writ of certiorari may issue to all inferior tribunals and jurisdictions, in cases where they exceed their jurisdiction, and in cases where they proceed illegally, and there is no appeal or other mode of directly reviewing their proceedings. These are the only instances in which their proceedings can be reviewed on certiorari. The People v. Wilkinson, 13 Illinois, 660. The present application does not fall within either of these classes of cases. The circuit judge clearly had jurisdiction of the case. The charter of the corporation expressly invested him with power to appoint the appraisers, and to confirm or set aside their assessment. And he proceeded regularly in the exercise of the power. If any error intervened to the prejudice of the petitioner, it was in the action of the judge upon the report of the appraisers. But that action did' not relate to his jurisdiction, or to the regularity of his proceedings. It was simply a decision upon the evidence. A return to a writ of certiorari would not bring up the evidence upon which the decision was based. It would only embrace the record of the proceedings. This court would have to determine from the face of the record whether there was an excess of jurisdiction or any irregularity in the course of proceeding. No question” would arise upon the evidence, or upon any decision made thereon. An error of judgment on the part of the judge, either as to the facts or the law of the case, could not be inquired into and corrected. The law on this subject is too well settled to require discussion. The People v. The Mayor, 2 Hill, 9; In the matter of Mount Morris Square, Ib. 14; Birdsall v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 464; Prindle v. Anderson, 19 Ib. 391; Simpson v. Ehinelander, 20 Ib. 103; Johnson v. Moss, Ib. 145; Ex parte the Mayor of Albany, 23 Ib. 277.

The application is denied.

Application denied.1

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

Related

Drury v. Hurley
88 N.E.2d 728 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1949)
Hahnemann Hospital v. Industrial Board
118 N.E. 767 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1918)
Lindblom v. Doherty
102 Ill. App. 14 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Collins v. Kinnare
89 Ill. App. 236 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Merchants & Planters Bank v. Fitzgerald
33 S.W. 1064 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)
Wright v. Highway Commissioners
36 N.E. 980 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
Trustees of Schools v. Shepherd
28 N.E. 1073 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1891)
Durham v. Field
30 Ill. App. 121 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
Poe v. Machine Works
24 W. Va. 517 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1884)
Donahue v. County of Will
100 Ill. 94 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
Hyslop v. Finch
99 Ill. 171 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
State ex rel. Valeton v. Skinner
33 La. Ann. 255 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1881)
Miller v. Trustees of Schools Township 15 North, Range 6 East
88 Ill. 26 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1878)
Hayward v. Bath
35 N.H. 514 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Ill. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doolittle-v-galena-chicago-union-railroad-ill-1853.