{ "id": 2698439, "name": "Patrick Delahanty v. John Warner et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Delahanty v. Warner", "decision_date": "1874-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "185", "last_page": "186", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "75 Ill. 185" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "68 Ill. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2630122 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Hill, 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 443702 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/25/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 260, "char_count": 3976, "ocr_confidence": 0.515, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.275298933820006e-07, "percentile": 0.9751591695114271 }, "sha256": "09f46eafcb536717c83a185dbdf828b966e2e0d5446ada813f863ad00655ee0d", "simhash": "1:96b2453821a17d5b", "word_count": 689 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:05.325327+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Patrick Delahanty v. John Warner et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nAppellant was superintendent of streets in the city of Peoria, and he alleges, by his bill, that he was unlawfully removed from his office, and prays that the aldermen and mayor of the city may be enjoined from appointing a successor, and from interfering with him in any way in the discharge of his duties as-street commissioner.\nThe court below dissolved the temporary injunction which -had been issued) and dismissed the bill for want of equity.\nIn this we perceive no error. Appellant\u2019s remedy was complete at law. High on Injunctions, sec.781. If he was not properly removed, and a successor cannot therefore be legally appointed, the question can be settled by quo warranto against the person claiming to be his successor in office. People ex rel., etc., v. Forquer, Breese (Beecher\u2019s ed.), 104; People, etc., v. Matteson, 17 Ill. 168.\nBy mandamus, the mayor and aldermen may be compelled to restore to him any evidence of his right to the office, or any property pertaining thereto which they may have improperly withheld from him. People ex rel., etc., v. Head, 25 Ill. 325; People ex rel. v. Kildruff, 15 ib. 492; People ex rel. v. Hilliard, 29 ib. 414. And where the title to the office is not in dispute, mandamus will lie to restore the person entitled to it. Street v. County Comm's, Breese (Beecher\u2019s ed.), 50; People v. Stevens, 5 Hill, 616. Nor can there be any doubt of appellant\u2019s having a complete remedy at law for any fees and emoluments pertaining to the office of which he may have been unlawfully deprived by the action of the mayor and aldermen. ' The court below, however, in dismissing the bill, ordered the payment of one hundred dollars, as solicitor\u2019s fees, to appellees, and there is no evidence preserved in the record justifying this order. We have held that this must be done, and that it is error to make an allowance for solicitor\u2019s fees on the dissolution of an injunction, except upon evidence showing that services of-the solicitor were actually rendered, and that they were, in value, equal to the amount ordered to be paid. Albright et al. v. Smith et al. 68 Ill. 181.\nThe order allowing the solicitor\u2019s fees will be reversed, and the decree in all other respects must be affirmed. The costs in this court will be equally divided between the parties.\nReversed in part.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield" } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. McCulloch, Stevens & Wilson, for the appellant.", "Mr. J. S. Starr, and Messrs. Lee & Quinn, for the appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Patrick Delahanty v. John Warner et al.\n1. Chancery jurisdiction\u2014to try validity of removal from office. \u00c1 court of equity has no jurisdiction to entertain a bill to enjoin the mayor and aldermen of a city from removing a party from an office, and appointing a successor, and from preventing the party from discharging his duties after removal by them, as the party\u2019s remedy at law is complete, by quo warranto against the successor, or mandamus against the mayor and councilmen.\n2. Mandamus\u2014when it lies. Where a person is improperly removed from office by the mayor and aldermen of a city, he may compel them by mandamus to restore to him any evidence of his right to the office, in any property pertaining thereto, which they may improperly withhold from him. And where the title to the office is not in dispute, mandamus will lie to restore the person entitled to it.\n3. Oeficer\u2014right to fees of office when illegally removed. If an officer of a city is unlawfully removed from his office by the city authorities, he has a complete remedy at law for any fees and emoluments pertaining to the office of which he is deprived.\n4. Chancery practice\u2014evidence must appea/r in record to support decree. Where the record shows the assessment of damages upon the dissolution of an injunction, but does not show the evidence upon which the assessment is made, the order will be reversed for the error.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Joseph W. Cochran, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. McCulloch, Stevens & Wilson, for the appellant.\nMr. J. S. Starr, and Messrs. Lee & Quinn, for the appellees." }, "file_name": "0185-01", "first_page_order": 185, "last_page_order": 186 }