{ "id": 5201198, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. William Sanaghan, Petitioners-Appellees, v. John Swalec, Walter Jadczak, Edward Jedlicea, William Dolega, J. T. Windauer, Joseph Kogut, and Ward Milkins, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Sanaghan v. Swalec", "decision_date": "1959-09-14", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 47,665", "first_page": "374", "last_page": "378", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "22 Ill. App. 2d 374" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "382 Ill. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2479714 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/382/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 Ill. App. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2429266, 2430887 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/345/0415-01", "/ill-app/345/0415-02" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 927", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 W. Va. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8637654 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/55/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. E. 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 W. Va. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8638294 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/114/0509-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 4918, "ocr_confidence": 0.543, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0637133175120258e-07, "percentile": 0.756886405346412 }, "sha256": "f911a300c55b63ddf9b377db9f748eeb217219a44c7246bef78a5699c2db6c98", "simhash": "1:8a0c9bfbadd5075a", "word_count": 825 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:07.194887+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SCHWARTZ and McCORMICK, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. William Sanaghan, Petitioners-Appellees, v. John Swalec, Walter Jadczak, Edward Jedlicea, William Dolega, J. T. Windauer, Joseph Kogut, and Ward Milkins, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a petition for a writ of mandamus against the trustees of the Village of Calumet Park, praying that the trustees he ordered to appoint a hoard of fire and police commissioners by virtue of \u00a7 14-1 of the Cities and Villages Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1957, ch. 24, \u00a7 14\u20141). The defendants appeal from a summary judgment granting the writ of mandamus.\nThe pertinent provisions of \u00a7 14-1 are:\n\u201cIn every municipality with a population of more than 5,000 and not more than 250,000 which is not subject to \u2018An Act to regulate the civil service of cities,\u2019 approved March 20, 1895, as amended, and in every municipality with a population of 5,000 or less which adopts this article as provided in Section 14-17, the mayor of the city, with the consent of the city council, or the president of the village or incorporated town, with the consent of the board of trustees, shall appoint a board of fire and police commissioners.\u201d\nThe petition alleges that the relator is a resident and property owner of the Village of Calumet Park: that \u00a7 14-1 imposes a duty on the defendants to appoint a board of fire and police commissioners; that although demands have been made they have not performed their duty and the \u201crelator is and has been injured in that he has been deprived of the benefits of a board.\u201d\nThe defendants argue that \u00a7 14 is designed to protect firemen and policemen, and, therefore, the relator, who does not claim to be an actual or potential memher of these two groups, has not been deprived of any benefits conferred by statute and has no right to bring this action. They also contend that \u00a7 14-1 applies \u201conly to municipalities employing full-time firemen and policemen\u201d; that it is not applicable to Calumet Park which has only volunteer firemen and part-time policemen, who have employment in other occupations.\nThe defendants\u2019 first argument coincides with the defense raised in Prichard v. De Van, 114 W. Va. 509, 172 S. E. 711. That case involved a statute which placed fire departments under civil service and required a civil service commission in each city having a fire department. The mayor had the obligation to appoint one of the three members of the commission. \"When he refused, a citizen brought mandamus proceedings. The defendant alleged that \u201cthe relator does not show a clear legal right to the writ prayed for.\u201d The court disagreed. In so doing it stated:\n\u201c4. And finally, the brief contends that the public benefit to be derived from the act is so remote that the relator, though a citizen of and property owner within the city of Charleston, has no right to maintain this proceeding. The act is designed to increase the efficiency of the fire department. The public at large is generally interested in such increased efficiency, and the relator, as a property owner, is directly interested. An individual may maintain mandamus to compel the performance of an official act in which the individual has a common interest with the public at large. Payne v. Staunton, 55 W. Va. 202, 46 S.E. 927, 2 Ann. Cas. 74.\u201d\nWe agree with the reasoning of that court and think it is applicable to our situation. The purpose of art. 14 of ch. 24 is to promote the efficiency and capability of the police and fire departments; the application and retention of qualified persons is encouraged. People ex rel. Cadell v. Board of Fire & Police Com\u2019rs, 345 Ill. App. 415. For example, it provides for appointment only after an examination (\u00a7 14\u20146) and for removal only after a hearing on charges (\u00a7 14-11). The public has a direct interest in the quality of its policemen and firemen. Where there is a public interest a citizen may bring mandamus proceedings. Retail Liquor Dealers\u2019 Protective Ass\u2019n of Illinois v. Schreiber, 382 Ill. 454.\nFurthermore, we believe that the writ of mandamus was properly issued. The statute is clear. It states that a board of fire and police commissioners \u201cshall\u201d be appointed. The language is mandatory, and no exception is made for voluntary fire departments or part-time police departments. If the legislature had intended to give the defendants discretion or had intended to provide exceptions, it would have done so. Therefore, the defendants have the obligation to appoint a board of fire and police commissioners.\nThe order of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCHWARTZ and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Arthur E. Dillner, of Dolton, and Thomas A. Matthews and Byron S. Matthews, of Chicago, for defendants-appellants.", "John McMahon Murphy, of Chicago, for plaintiffsappellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. William Sanaghan, Petitioners-Appellees, v. John Swalec, Walter Jadczak, Edward Jedlicea, William Dolega, J. T. Windauer, Joseph Kogut, and Ward Milkins, Defendants-Appellants.\nGen. No. 47,665.\nFirst District, First Division.\nSeptember 14, 1959.\nReleased for publication October 19, 1959.\nArthur E. Dillner, of Dolton, and Thomas A. Matthews and Byron S. Matthews, of Chicago, for defendants-appellants.\nJohn McMahon Murphy, of Chicago, for plaintiffsappellees." }, "file_name": "0374-01", "first_page_order": 384, "last_page_order": 388 }