People ex rel. Darnell v. Woodward

120 N.E. 496, 285 Ill. 165
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1918
DocketNo. 12196
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 120 N.E. 496 (People ex rel. Darnell v. Woodward) 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
People ex rel. Darnell v. Woodward, 120 N.E. 496, 285 Ill. 165 (Ill. 1918).

Opinion

Mr.. Justice Carter

delivered the ppinion of the court:

This is a petition filed in the circuit court of DeKalb county by the State’s attorney of that county, on the relation of various persons, for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto against appellants, alleging that they had usurped and were unlawfully holding and exercising the offices and powers of president and members of a high school board of education. Appellants filed a plea of justification, claiming to be the legally elected officers of a legally organized high school district. After various pleadings were filed and hearings had, the court overruled the demurrer which it was stipulated should be assumed as filed to the replication, and entered a judgment of ouster. After the validating act of June 14, 1917, was passed, the trial court, on motion, vacated said former judgment and granted a new trial. After a hearing in which said validating act was formally brought to the attention of the court, the assumed demurrer was again overruled and judgment of ouster again entered. From this judgment the respondents have perfected an appeal to this court.

Township High School District No. 402 in question was organized under the High School act of 1911 and was situated in three counties, viz., DeKalb, LaSalle and Kendall. It is about ten miles long, measured from north to south, and about eight miles wide at its widest portions. The city of Sandwich lies within it at about the center. About one and a half miles to the east of the eastern boundary of the district, and outside of it, lies the city of Plano, in Kendall county, and about three-fourths of a mile west of its western boundary, in LaSalle county, and also outside of said district, is the village of Somonauk.

It is argued at some length by counsel that the validating act of 1917 is unconstitutional. In view of the repeated decisions of this court holding such act constitutional we see no reason to further consider that question. Practically all the points raised on that subject have been considered and disposed of by this .court in former decisions.

The further point is made by appellees that the high school district as organized is invalid and unconstitutional because the territory out of which it was organized has within its boundaries all or parts of former school districts which have heretofore conducted and now are conducting high schools in connection with the other work of said school districts; that as each of these former districts had heretofore conducted a high school said High School District No. 402 is illegal, because two corporations of the same kind and character cannot occupy the same territory at the same time for the same purpose. (People v. Militzer, 272 Ill. 387; People v. Crews, 245 id. 318; People v. Lease, 248 id. 187; Bishop v. People, 200 id. 33; West Chicago Park Comrs. v. Sweet, 167 id. 326; West Chicago Park Comrs. v. City of Chicago, 132 id. 392.) The principle laid down in these decisions is self-evident as applying to the facts in the respective cases, but the application of that principle to the special facts in this and other cases is not always free from difficulty. In the first place, in this case it is not clear that the former school districts occupying the territory in dispute exercised the same powers, jurisdictions and privileges as the high school district here in dispute is authorized to exercise. The original districts were organized as ordinary common school districts under the general School law, and they could exercise such powers as are authorized by sections 103 to 127 and 524 to 539, inclusive, of chapter 122 of the Illinois statutes. (Hurd’s Stat. 1917, pp. 2655, 2736.) It is well known that under these sections of the statute the boards of directors are supposed to establish and maintain schools for what are usually known as the common school grades, while it is the duty of the high school boards of education, such as are in control of Township High School District No. 402, to establish at some central point most convenient for the majority of the pupils of the township, high schools for the more advanced-pupils. The authority of the board of education of the ordinary common school district and of such a high school district as this differ also in some other respects. Even if it could be argued that the two corporations covering the same territory exercised similar powers, the creation of the new one would be legal unless prohibited by the constitution. While the wisdom of having two boards of school directors occupying the same territory and exercising the same or similar powers in the same territory might well be doubted, that is not the question before this court. We are considering the constitutionality of so organizing in the same territory two boards of directors with the same or similar powers. It was said by this court in Russell v. High School Board, 212 Ill. 327, on page 331: “Even if it could be said that there are two corporations covering the same territory, the creation of the new one would be nothing but a division or re-distribution of existing powers under the School law.” Again, in Speight v. People, 87 Ill. 595, the court said (p. 600) : “The General Assembly, in accordance with a well settled canon of construction of legislative powers, may therefore act, in these respects, at its discretion, and prescribe such mode for the formation of school districts and designate such persons for the levying, collecting and having the custody of school taxes as it, alone, shall consider most conducive to the public interests.” Again, in People v. Bruennemer, 168 Ill. 482, the court said (p. 488) : “The legislature made no proviso that if a city has a high school or graded schools it shall not be a part of the township district. Probably every city within the terms of the statute has such schools. As we said in Trustees of Schools v. People, 161 Ill. 146, we cannot relieve from hardship resulting from valid legislative acts, and if it.is a hardship that the inhabitants of a city should be required to contribute to the support of different schools where the higher branches are taught, the appeal must be to the law-making power.”

It it well known that in our complex system of government different public authorities exercisé within parts of the same territory practically similar powers. Thus, in Chicago Packing and Provision Co. v. City of Chicago, 88 Ill. 221, it was held that two municipal corporations could exercise within the same district the power of prohibiting or licensing the operation of packing houses. So, also, in Wilson v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 133 Ill. 443, and People v. Nelson, 133 id. 565, it was held that the organization of the sanitary district, which included parts of other municipalities, was constitutional, even though the different municipal authorities exercised, in parts of the same territory, the power and authority to build and control public improvements for the sewage disposal in such territory. This power and authority must be exercised in a particular way by these different public authorities so as not to bring different municipalities into conflict in doing the same identical work for the same sections. It is well known that the park systems of Chicago, the Sanitary District of Chicago and the city of Chicago have police forces that are active within substantially the same territory.

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

Related

City of Evanston v. County of Cook
291 N.E.2d 823 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1972)
Kucharski v. White
247 N.E.2d 428 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1969)
The PEOPLE v. Francis
239 N.E.2d 129 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1968)
Baro v. Murphy
207 N.E.2d 593 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1965)
Dugan v. Berning
143 N.E.2d 547 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1957)
People ex rel. Adamowski v. Metropolitan Sanitary District
143 N.E.2d 550 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1957)
People Ex Rel. Tuohy v. City of Chicago
78 N.E.2d 285 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
People Ex Rel. Greening v. Bartholf
58 N.E.2d 172 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1944)
People ex rel. Strother v. Sleight
137 N.E. 829 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1922)
Schrodt v. Holsen
132 N.E. 424 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 N.E. 496, 285 Ill. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-darnell-v-woodward-ill-1918.