People ex rel. Williams v. Glasgow

Illinois Supreme Court

People ex rel. Williams v. Glasgow

134 N.E. 19, 301 Ill. 394

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 22, 1922

DocketNo. 14214

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 134 N.E. 19 (People ex rel. Williams v. Glasgow) 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. Williams v. Glasgow, 134 N.E. 19, 301 Ill. 394 (Ill. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court:

March 31, 1921, the State’s attorney, at the relation of the appellants, by leave of court filed an information in quo warranto in the circuit court of Peoria county demanding that appellees show by what right they pretended to act as president and members of the board of education of Community Consolidated School District No. 204 in Peoria county. June 20, 1921, the court entered a judgment which contains the following recital: “This cause now coming on to be heard before the court upon the motion of respondents to abate and dismiss suit, and the court having had the same under advisement and having fully considered the same, and being now sufficiently advised in the premises, doth sustain said motion and dismiss suit.” From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The clerk has copied into the record filed in this cause a motion which purports to have been filed by appellees May 23, 1921, wherein they “move the court to quash the information filed herein and to dismiss the petition and abate this suit in accordance with the act of May 4, 1921, legalizing the organization of community consolidated schools.” Appellants have assigned error on the court’s ruling on the motion, but they are in no position to question in this court the trial court’s ruling on the motion for the reason that there is no bill of exceptions or stenographic report signed by the trial judge and made a part of the record. (People v. Board of Review, 263 Ill. 326; People v. Cowen, 283 id. 308; Savanna and York Drainage District v. DeLaVergne, 298 id. 480.) In the absence of a bill of exceptions we are unable to tell for what reason the court entered its judgment dismissing the information. The presumption in favor of the regularity of proceedings in court will obtain until overcome by a showing that error has been committed. The judgment of the circuit court is presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown. Vinyard v. Barnes, 124 Ill. 346; People v. Big Lake Drainage District, 156 id. 614; City of Chicago v. Ogden & Co. 227 id. 595; Laird v. Dickirson, 241 id. 380.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court:

March 31, 1921, the State’s attorney, at the relation of the appellants, by leave of court filed an information in quo warranto in the circuit court of Peoria county demanding that appellees show by what right they pretended to act as president and members of the board of education of Community Consolidated School District No. 204 in Peoria county. June 20, 1921, the court entered a judgment which contains the following recital: “This cause now coming on to be heard before the court upon the motion of respondents to abate and dismiss suit, and the court having had the same under advisement and having fully considered the same, and being now sufficiently advised in the premises, doth sustain said motion and dismiss suit.” From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The clerk has copied into the record filed in this cause a motion which purports to have been filed by appellees May 23, 1921, wherein they “move the court to quash the information filed herein and to dismiss the petition and abate this suit in accordance with the act of May 4, 1921, legalizing the organization of community consolidated schools.” Appellants have assigned error on the court’s ruling on the motion, but they are in no position to question in this court the trial court’s ruling on the motion for the reason that there is no bill of exceptions or stenographic report signed by the trial judge and made a part of the record. (People v. Board of Review, 263 Ill. 326; People v. Cowen, 283 id. 308; Savanna and York Drainage District v. DeLaVergne, 298 id. 480.) In the absence of a bill of exceptions we are unable to tell for what reason the court entered its judgment dismissing the information. The presumption in favor of the regularity of proceedings in court will obtain until overcome by a showing that error has been committed. The judgment of the circuit court is presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown. Vinyard v. Barnes, 124 Ill. 346; People v. Big Lake Drainage District, 156 id. 614; City of Chicago v. Ogden & Co. 227 id. 595; Laird v. Dickirson, 241 id. 380.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 N.E. 19, 301 Ill. 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-williams-v-glasgow-ill-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack