{ "id": 5316624, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. Rose D. Rittman, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rittman", "decision_date": "1910-05-03", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,386", "first_page": "523", "last_page": "527", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "155 Ill. App. 523" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 Mich. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1472969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/108/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ill. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2452533 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/29/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 N. H. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 4401294 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/15/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 Mass. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 26390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/177/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ill. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5599048 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/206/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 Ill. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3157979 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/176/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. J. Law, 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 339081 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/52/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. App. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 868988 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/62/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313341 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 Ill. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 Ill. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3283555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/205/0482-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 518, "char_count": 7952, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15780476004585595 }, "sha256": "3acd91054e4e1577caac98a9cffd1b9153066e7c187e04c4eb30a4179b38bec8", "simhash": "1:df304d81df132a83", "word_count": 1362 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:58.385954+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. Rose D. Rittman, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the \u25a0court.\nBy this writ of error a judgment of the Superior Court is brought before us dismissing a petition filed by the plaintiff in error for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto to test the right of defendant in error, Rose D. Rittman, to the office of president (High Chief Ranger) of the Woman\u2019s Catholic Order of Foresters, a fraternal insurance corporation of Illinois.\nThe membership of the order is confined to women of the Catholic faith, enrolled in membership in local lodges or courts controlled by a constitution and bylaws, and subject to the jurisdiction of a supreme body called a High Court.\nThe contestant, Elizabeth Rodgers, in' whose behalf the petition was filed, was the organizer of the order, and had been its High Chief Ranger or President for its entire existence. She was a candidate for re-election at the annual convention of delegates which met in Detroit, Michigan, in October, 1908. Mrs. Rose D. Rittman, defendant in error, had been Vice Chief Ranger four years, and was the only opposition candidate. At the election eight hundred valid ballots were cast, of which Mrs. Rittman received four hundred and one and Mrs. Rodgers three hundred and ninety-nine.\nThe petition alleges that the election of Mrs. Rittman was invalid because of fraud and intimidation therein as the result of a conspiracy between members and persons not members, and sets out in great detail acts done outside of the convention and in the convention which, if proven, were of a character tending to-establish a fraudulent conspiracy to libel, slander and defame the character of Mrs. Dodgers, and, what is of more serious legal importance, that in connection therewith an undue and illegal spiritual influence was exerted upon the members of the convention by persons possessing spiritual authority in the Catholic Church, not members of the order or of the convention, which was calculated to influence directly the result of the election and to destroy freedom in the election by threats to withhold the sacraments of the church and expose the delegates who should vote for Mrs. Dodgers to other religious penalties. The petition also alleges a violation of the constitution of the order which provides : \u201cWhen marking the ballot each delegate shall be entitled to privacy, and her freedom of choice shall not be in any way restricted.\u201d Attached to the petition as exhibits and made a part of it are a number of affidavits which tend to support the allegations of the petition. Counter affidavits of the defendant in error were also filed and read on the hearing of the petition.\nWe do not deem it necessary at this time to set out the averments of the voluminous petition, or to discuss in detail all the questions of law raised. A brief statement of our conclusions is sufficient. The question now presented by the record before us is whether the Superior Court erred in its legal discretion in refusing leave to file the information and in dismissing the petition. The People ex rel. v. People\u2019s Gas Light Co., 205 Ill. 482. \u201cLeave on the one hand, is not granted as a matter of right upon the part of the relator; and on the other hand, a court is not at liberty to arbitrarily refuse, but must exercise a sound discretion in accordance with principles of law.\u201d People ex rel. v. Town of Thornton, 186 Ill. 168; Paul v. People, 82 Ill. 82.\nThe statute of Illinois under which the Woman\u2019s Catholic Order of Foresters was organized provides: \u201cEach society shall have a lodge system, with ritualistic form of work and representative form of government,\u201d etc. Sec. 258, Chap. 73, Hurd\u2019s Revised Statutes. And section 267 of the same chapter provides: \u201cAny such society organized under the laws of this ' State may provide for the meeting of its,legislative or governing body in any other State, province or territory, wherein such societies shall have subordinate bodies, and all business that has heretofore or may hereafter be transacted at such meetings shall be valid in all respects, as if such meeting was held in this State,\u201d etc.\nSection 1 of Article 11 of. the Biennial Session & High Court By-laws provides: \u201cNominations and election of officers shall take place after reports, of the High Court officers and reports of the Committee on Constitution and Finance have been read and acted upon.\u201d The section then provides the method of conducting elections and declares: \u201cWhen marking the ballot, each delegate shall be entitled to privacy, and her freedom of choice shall not be, in any way, restricted.\u201d\nIt is clear, we think, that the statute of this state under which the election in question was authorized and held and the by-laws contemplate a representative form of government for such societies, and elections thereunder wherein the freedom of choice of the delegate voting shall be secured, and\"\u201cshall not be, in any way, restricted. \u201d The rights thus secured to the members of the society by the statute and by the constitution and by-laws of the order under the statute are as high, at least, and as important as the rights of contract, and should be as strictly guarded and protected, as are the rights of contract (Doremus v. Hennessy, 62 Ill. App. 391; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 52 N. J. Law, 284; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor et al., L. R. 21 Q. B. 544; Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608; London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Horn, 206 Ill. 493; Moran v. Dumphy, 177 Mass. 485), and courts should see, in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, that such rights are fully protected and that fraudulent combinations and unlawful influences calculated to subvert such rights are not rewarded by ultimate success.\nWe are of the opinion that the allegations of the petition are sufficient to require the court to grant leave to the petitioner to file an information in the nature of a \u25a0quo warranto against the defendant in error, and that the Superior Court erred in refusing the leave and dismissing the petition.\n\u201cThe right to vote necessarily includes the right to vote as one chooses, free and untrammeled. And the genius of our free institutions demands that the mind as well as the body shall be free to exercise the elective franchise, free and untrammeled, without fear of bodily harm, social ostracism, or of religious wrath; and if any of the practices be exercised upon the body of the voters to any great extent, the purity of election is marred and election freedom destroyed; and if it be so general as to affect the result, or that from it the real result cannot be ascertained from the returns, the election is void.\u201d Richardson v. Rainey, 1 Ellsw. El. Cases, 233; Duffy v. Mason, 1 Ellsw. El. Cases, 361. See also Payne on Elections, sec. 467, p. 391; Mc-Crary on Elections, sec. 550, p. 407; secs. 582, 582a and 569; State v. Burnham, 15 N. H. 396; Piatt v. People, 29 Ill. 54; Attorney General v. Stillson, 108 Mich. 419; Cunningham on Elections, pp. 202, 203, 204; Trench v. Rolan, 6 Irish Reports, C. L. 464.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Smith" } ], "attorneys": [ "John B. W. Wayman, for plaintiff in error; Francis A. McDonnell and Frank L. Fowler, of counsel. \u25a0", "Edward Osgood Brown and I. T. Greenacre, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. Rose D. Rittman, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 15,386.\nQuo wakrahto\u2014when lies. Quo warranto lies to test the right to hold the office of president of a fraternal insurance corporation upon allegations of non-observance of the by-laws of the society and the use of undue influence, etc., in effecting the alleged election of the incumbent of such office.\nQuo warranto. Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Willard M. McEwen, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 3, 1910.\nRehearing denied and modified \u25a0opinion filed May 17, 1910.\nJohn B. W. Wayman, for plaintiff in error; Francis A. McDonnell and Frank L. Fowler, of counsel. \u25a0\nEdward Osgood Brown and I. T. Greenacre, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0523-01", "first_page_order": 541, "last_page_order": 545 }