{ "id": 2923815, "name": "Henry McAlevy, Appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "McAlevy v. City of Chicago", "decision_date": "1917-10-09", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,572", "first_page": "350", "last_page": "351", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 Ill. App. 350" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 289, "char_count": 4652, "ocr_confidence": 0.554, "sha256": "9f4db2947dd7c783ef56682ed62303051c849e328d2bebb9a689f9201fba4942", "simhash": "1:3957456411034478", "word_count": 773 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Henry McAlevy, Appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Municipal cokpobations, \u00a7 13 \u2014 what was effect of organization of City of Chicago under Cities and Tillages Act as to continuance of position of police patrolman as city office. The organization of the City of Chicago under the Cities and Villages Act (J. & A. If 1271 et seq.), affected an abolition of all city offices not thereby-continued or created, and a repeal of all provisions in previous acts inconsistent therewith, and such previous acts were inconsistent with the provisions of the Cities and Villages Act as to continuance of the position of police patrolman as a city office.\n3. Mandamus, \u00a7 139* \u2014 when petition of mandamus for reinstatement of police patrolman shows no legal right to position as public office. A petition for reinstatement of patrolman on the police force of the City of Chicago which does not show that the steps required by the Cities and Villages Act necessary to the creation of any other office than those created by the act have been taken to establish the position of police patrolman as a city office as designated in said act, shows no legal right of petitioner to the position as a public or city office.\n4. Mandamus, \u00a7 139* \u2014 when petition of mandamus for reinstatement of patrolman on police force does not show appointment. A petition of mandamus for reinstatement of a patrolman on the police force of the City of Chicago which sets forth the adoption of the Civil Service Act (J. & A. If 1799 et seq.) by the city, the classification by the Commission of places of employment thereunder including \u201cpersons in the uniformed police force,\u201d and the qualifications of petitioner for the position of police patrolman, and avers that he took the civil service examination and \u201cpassed as being duly qualified for the office of police patrolman\u201d in the year 1902, and on January 21, 1903 \u201cwas appointed\u201d to said office by the then superintendent of police, and took the prescribed oath, entered upon the duties of such office and has never been legally removed, is insufficient to show that petitioner was ever legally appointed as police patrolman classified as such under such act, such averment as to appointment being the mere conclusion of the pleading.\n5. Mandamus, \u00a7 126* \u2014 how petition for mandamus for reinstatement of patrolman construed. A petition for mandamus for reinstatement of a patrolman on the police force of a city under the Civil Service Act must be taken most strongly against the pleader.\n6. Mandamus, \u00a7 139* \u2014 what are essentials of petition for mandamus for reinstatement of police patrolman. A petition for mandamus for reinstatement of a patrolman on the police force of the City of Chicago must show that the petitioner was an officer de jure and not merely a de facto policeman.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes" } ], "attorneys": [ "Samuel A. Ettelson, for appellants; Boy S. Gas-kill, of counsel.", "A. B. Chilcoat and Egbert D. Melick, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry McAlevy, Appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,572.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Civil service, \u00a7 27 - \u2014 When police patrolman guilty of laches in seeking reinstatement. A police patrolman is guilty of laches in seeking to be reinstated as patrolman on the police force of a city where he files the original petition more than fifteen months after his name has been dropped from the pay roll and his services dispensed with, and a demurrer is filed three days later, and nothing more is done until about twenty-seven months later, when an order setting aside a previous order of dismissal and reinstating the cause is made, and an amended petition is filed one month later.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fekjmobe Cooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition of mandamus by Henry McAIevy, petitioner, against the City of Chicago, William H. Thompson, mayor, Charles C. Healy, general superintendent of police, Percy B. Coffin, Charles E. Frazier and Joseph P. Geary, civil service commissioners, respondents, for reinstatement as patrolman on the police force of the City of Chicago. From a judgment commanding respondents to place petitioner\u2019s name on the civil service list of the city and the pay roll of its police patrolmen, respondents appeal.\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for appellants; Boy S. Gas-kill, of counsel.\nA. B. Chilcoat and Egbert D. Melick, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number." }, "file_name": "0350-01", "first_page_order": 376, "last_page_order": 377 }