People ex rel. Herndon v. Opel

58 N.E. 996, 188 Ill. 194
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 20, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 N.E. 996 (People ex rel. Herndon v. Opel) 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. Herndon v. Opel, 58 N.E. 996, 188 Ill. 194 (Ill. 1900).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Magruder

delivered the opinion of the court:

No probate court has existed in Sangamon county prior to the filing of the present petition for a writ of mandamus separately and independently of the county court, which has jurisdiction in probate matters. Since, however, the recent census of the United States shows the population of that county to be in excess of 70,000, it is claimed that thereby a probate court has been established in that county. The contention of the relators seems to be that, as soon as the population of a county is ascertained by the next preceding Federal census to be in excess of 70,000, the offices of probate judge and probate clerk are established, and that a vacancy is at once created in those offices, so that, immediately upon the official announcement of the census, it becomes the duty of the county clerk to call an election to fill the alleged vacancy in the office of probate clerk.

First — The first question, presented by the demurrer to the petition, is whether or not, by the mere official announcement of the census showing a population in excess of 70,000, a probate court is established and the offices of probate judge and probate clerk are created.

Section 20 of article 6 of the constitution, as quoted in the statement preceding this opinion, provides for the establishment by legislative action of a probate court in each county having a population of over 50,000, and for the election of a judge thereof, whose term of office shall be the same as that of the county judge, “and who shall be elected at the same time and in the same manner.” The mandate of the constitution is clear and emphatic, that the judge of the probate court to be established shall be elected at the same time when the county judge is elected. It then becomes important to ascertain when the judge of the county court is required by law to be elected.

Section 8 of article 10 of the constitution provides that “in each county there shall be elected the following county officers, at the general election to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, A. D. 1882: A county judge, county cler-k (and other officers). Each of said officers shall enter upon the duties of his office, respectively, on the first Monday of December, after his election, and they shall hold their respective offices for the term of four years, and until their successors are elected and qualified.” (1 Starr & Curt. Ann. Stat.— 2d ed. — p. 189).

In pursuance of this constitutional provision the legislature passed an act, entitled “An act to extend the jurisdiction of county courts,” etc., approved March 26, 1874, in force July 1, 1874, section 1 of which provides “that there-shall be in each of the counties of this State, now created and organized, or which may hereafter be created or organized, a court of record, to be styled ‘The County Court of........County. ’ Said court shall have a seal.” Section 8 of the last named act provides that “the county judge, in each county, shall be elected on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the year 1882, and on Tuesday after the first Monday in November every fourth year thereafter, and shall enter upon the duties of his office on the first Monday in December after his election, and shall hold his office for •four years, and until Ms successor is elected and qualified.” Section 5 of said act provides that “county courts shall have jurisdiction in all matters of probate, settlements of estates of deceased persons, appointment of guardians,” etc. (1 Starr & Curt. Ann. Stht. — 2d ed.— pp. 1175, 1176). Section 16 of the act of April 3, 1872, being" chapter 46 of the Revised Statutes, provides that “the county judges and county clerks shall be elected on Tuesday next after the first Monday of November, 1882, and every four years thereafter, and shall enter upon the duties of their offices on the first Monday of December after their election.” (2 Starr & Curt. Ann. Stat. — 2d ed. — p. 1642).

Inasmuch as, under the constitution and the statutes passed in pursuance thereof, the county judge of Sangamon county was first elected at the general election of November, 1882, and his successor was elected every four years thereafter, to enter upon the duties of the office on the first Monday of December after the election,- it follows that the judge of the county court of Sangamon county must have been elected at the general election in November, 1898, and entered upon the duties of his office on the first day of December, 1898. This being so, his term of office does not expire until December, 1902. At the latter date the election of a county j udge takes place. Consequently, the judge of the probate court to be established in Sangamon county cannot be elected until the general election of November, 1902.

The statute of 1877, as amended in 1881, providing for the establishment of probate courts, requires that the clerk of the probate court shall be elected at the same time when the probate judge is elected. Therefore, the clerk of the probate court to be established in Sangamón county must be elected at the general election, which takes place in November, 1902. This being so, it is difficult to see how the clerk of the county court can be compelled to call an election for the selection of a clerk of the probate court to be established in Sangamon county before the general election to take place in November, 1902.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not sufficient merely that the county shall have the requisite population of 70,000 in order to establish the probate court, but the time must arrive for the election of the judge of the probate court, which is the same time at which the judge of the county court is elected. The court cannot be established until it has a judge. A court has been defined to be “a body in the government organized for the public administration of justice at the time and place prescribed by law;” and it has been said that “a court is an incorporeal being, which requires for its existence the presence of the judge.” (8 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, — 2d ed. — p. 22). If a court cannot exist without the presence of the judge, and the judge cannot be elected until November, 1902, it cannot be said that an election should be called at this time for the selection of the clerk of the court, over which the judge is to preside. Indeed, the act of 1877 expressly provides that the clerk shall not be elected until the judge is elected. When the Federal census determines that the county has a population of over 70,000, the court may then be established and put into operation by electing a probate judge and a probate clerk at the next election at which the county judge is elected. Unless the things required by the constitution for the existence of the court concur, the court cannot exist.

Second — It is claimed, however, on the part of the relators, that a vacancy exists in the office of the clerk of the probate court within the meaning of the law relating to vacancies, and that the county clerk is, on that account, required to call an election to fill the vacancy. This contention proceeds upon the theory, that the official announcement of the census bureau as to the population establishes the probate court and the office of clerk thereof. As this theory cannot be sustained in view of what has already been said, it follows that no vacancy exists to be filled by an election.

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

Related

Mourne v. Tody
105 N.E.2d 156 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1952)
State v. Dixon
4 So. 2d 591 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1941)
State ex rel. Cook v. Birdsall
186 Iowa 129 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Mendelson v. Miller
11 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 586 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1911)
Yates v. McDonald
96 S.W. 865 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.E. 996, 188 Ill. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-herndon-v-opel-ill-1900.