{
  "id": 2408678,
  "name": "The People ex rel. John E. Northup, Relator, vs. The County of Cook et al. Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Northup v. County of Cook",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "274 Ill. 158"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5549487
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/181/0334-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 7275,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3354060655908488e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6300133714359408
    },
    "sha256": "ae6775497fff16e9d8fc5bbbed0fd0252e40514c276d026bd3a73383ff9860de",
    "simhash": "1:78217dcc8b8be358",
    "word_count": 1209
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:52.916366+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. John E. Northup, Relator, vs. The County of Cook et al. Respondents."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nJohn E. Northup was on June 2, 1913, appointed by the criminal court of Cook county a special State\u2019s attorney for the investigation and prosecution of offenses supposed to have been committed against the election laws in the general election of November, 1912. He acted under the \u00e1ppointment, devoting his whole time to the performance of the duties imposed, and on June 13, 1914, filed in this court, pursuant to leave granted, a petition for a writ of mandamus against the county of Cook, the president and members of the board of commissioners of Cook county, the county clerk and county treasurer, commanding the county and the board of commissioners to make an appropriation to cover the expenses incurred by him as such special State\u2019s attorney during the year 1913, the county clerk to draw and the county treasurer to pay warrants upon such appropriation; also commanding the county clerk to draw and the county treasurer to pay warrants against an appropriation of $20,000 made by the board of commissioners for such expenses for the year 1914.\nThe order of appointment, on its face, purported to give the relator \u201cpower to appoint any and all assistant special State\u2019s attorneys, clerks and investigators and other help or assistance in the performance of said duties, to the full extent as if he were the regularly elected State\u2019s attorney of Cook county, Illinois.\u201d The relator appointed eight special State\u2019s attorneys and nineteen investigators and clerks, employed stenographers, and incurred other expenses amounting in the aggregate to $37,989.71, including his own compensation at $800 a month. An answer was filed, an issue of fact was made up, which was referred to a commissioner, evidence was taken, and the cause has been submitted upon the pleadings, commissioner\u2019s report and exceptions thereto.\nThe relator\u2019s appointment as special State\u2019s attorney was made under the authority of section 6 of chapter 14 of the Revised Statutes. The relator insists that by this appointment he became an officer for whose salary and expenses the county of Cook was liable, and being so liable was under a duty, which might be enforced by mandamus, to make a sufficient appropriation therefor. In the first quarter of the fiscal year beginning December x, 1913, the board of county commissioners appropriated $20,000 for \u201cspecial State\u2019s attorney Northup, salary and expenses,\u201d and after the beginning of this suit that amount was paid over to the relator. He only claimed $800 a month for his own salary, and therefore that question is no longer in the case if the payment of the other claims cannot be enforced by mandamus.\nAs to the pay of,the assistant State\u2019s attorneys, stenographers and clerks and the other expenses incurred by the relator, he has no right to a writ of mandamus. In his brief the relator says that the attorneys, investigators, clerks.and stenographers employed by him are not presenting any claim against the county but that their claims are merely an indebtedness of the relator to them, and that this proceeding is brought only for his own compensation and expenses. It is his position that these claims stand on the same footing as his own compensation and that the board of county commissioners was under the same obligation to appropriate money for their payment. If the relator had authority to employ attorneys and other assistants and fix their compensation and purchase supplies, such authority must be found expressed or reasonably implied in some statute. The order of his appointment only authorized him to employ assistants to the same extent as if he were the State\u2019s attorney of Cook county. No such authority as is claimed exists in the State\u2019s attorney. The statute provides that where assistant State\u2019s attorneys are required in any county, the number of such assistants and the salary to be paid shall be determined by the board of county commissioners or supervisors, as the case may be. (Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1913, p. 1252.)\nIn regard to the purchase of supplies and the incurring of other expense against the county, the board of county commissioners is authorized to examine and settle all accounts, and by section 35 of chapter 34 of the Revised Statutes it is provided that before any claim against the county is audited and allowed it must be verified by the affidavit of the claimant or his agent, and when disallowed an appeal may be taken to the circuit court. Mandamus is not a proper proceeding for the collection of debts. It will only lie against a municipal corporation to enforce the payment of a claim ascertained to be due. (People v. Red-dick, 181 Ill. 334.) This ascertainment may be by a judgment, by the action of the municipal authorities auditing and allowing the claim, or by the imposition, by law, of a charge without the action of the municipal authorities, such as the salaries of officers fixed by law, jurors\u2019 fees, or other like charges. The amounts claimed for assistants, stenographers, clerks and investigators and for miscellaneous expenses are unliquidated demands, which must be audited by the county board or for which a judgment must be recovered against the county before the writ of mandamus can be awarded for the payment of them. r J\nTzz ... . , Writ denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas Marshall, for relator.",
      "Maclay HoynE, State\u2019s Attorney, (Henry A. Berger, of counsel,) for respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. John E. Northup, Relator, vs. The County of Cook et al. Respondents.\nOpinion filed June 22, 1916.\n1. Counties\u2014county board must determine number of assistant State\u2019s attorneys and their salary. A special State\u2019s attorney, whose order of appointment gives him the same authority as a regularly elected State\u2019s attorney to appoint assistants, has no power to bind the county by appointing assistant special State\u2019s attorneys, as it is the province of the board of county commissioners or board of supervisors, as the case may be, and not that of the State\u2019s attorney, to determine the number of assistant State\u2019s attorneys and to fix their compensation.\n2. Same\u2014claim against cotmty must be verified by affidavit of claimant or his agent. Under the statute the board of county commissioners of Cook county is authorized to examine and settle all accounts, but before any claim against the county is audited and allowed it must be verified by affidavit of the claimant or his agent.\n3. Mandamus\u2014when mandamus will not lie against a county. Mandamus will not lie against a county to compel the payment of claims for the pay of assistant special State\u2019s attorneys, clerks, stenographers and investigators and the miscellaneous expenses attending the investigation in which such persons were engaged, where such claims have neither been audited by the county board nor reduced to judgment against the county.\n4. Sams\u2014mandamus will not lie to collect a claim not ascertained to be due. Mandamus will not lie against a municipal corporation to enforce payment of a claim unless the claim has been ascertained to be due by a judgment, by the action of the municipal authorities in auditing and allowing the claim, or by the imposition of a charge, by law, which does not require any action by the municipal authorities.\nOriginal petition for mandamus.\nThomas Marshall, for relator.\nMaclay HoynE, State\u2019s Attorney, (Henry A. Berger, of counsel,) for respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 161
}