TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hoyer v. Town of Mascoutah

Wesley Hoyer v. The Town of Mascoutah

Hoyer v. Town of Mascoutah, 59 Ill. 137 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1871
Judges
Scott
Citations
59 Ill. 137
Syllabus
1. Penalty—proceeding to collect, whether civil or criminal. It has been held that a proceeding to collect a penalty for the violation of a town ordinance is a civil suit—that such a penalty Can not be recovered in any criminal proceeding. 2. Same—where offense charged is assault and battery. Where it is sought to recover such a penalty, the fact that the offense charged is assault and battery, does not change the character of the proceeding. The town only acquires jurisdiction because the offense is prohibited by ordinance. 3. Appeals, in such cases. In all such cases, appeals from justices of the peace must be allowed and perfected under the provisions of the statute allowing appeals in civil cases. , 4. Amendment of appeal bond. Apd if the appeal bond should be found to be defective, it is the duty of the circuit court to allow amendments, as in civil cases.
Summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Scott delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace by the town of Mascoutah against the plaintiff in error, for an alleged violation of an ordinance of said town. A trial was had before the justice of the peace, Avhich resulted in a judgment against the plaintiff in error, from which he prayed an appeal to the circuit court, and filed his bond in accordance Avitli. the provisions of the statute alloAving appeals in cíauI suits.

At the October term of the circuit court of St. Clair county, A. D. 1870, the counsel for the defendant in error entered a motion to dismiss the appeal, on two grounds: 1st, that, inasmuch as this was a prosecution for assault and battery, under the ordinances of the town, the appeal bond Avas insufficient in not containing a condition providing for the payment of a judgment that might be rendered upon a plea of guilty ; and, 2d, that the appeal bond Avas entered into before and filed Avitli the justice of the peace Avho tried the cause, and was not éntered into before and filed Avitli the clerk of the circuit court, as the statute directs in cases of assault and battery. The plaintiffs in error asked leave to amend the appeal bond, Avhich leave the court refused to grant, and dismissed the appeal.

The decision of the court, refusing leave to amend the appeal bond, and dismissing the appeal, is now assigned for error.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, that a proceeding to collect a penalty for the violation of a toAvn ordinance is a civil suit. Such a penalty can not be recovered in any criminal proceeding. Town of Jacksonville v. Block, 36 Ill. 507 ; Graubner v. City of Jacksonville, 50 Ill. 87 . The fact that the offense charged was assault and battery, does not change the character of the proceedings. It is still a civil suit. The town only acquires jurisdiction because the offense is prohibited by ordinance.

In all such cases appeals must be allowed and perfected under the provisions of the statute allowing appeals in civil cases before a justice of the peace.

If the appeal bond should "be found to be defective, it is the duty of the court to allow amendments as in civil actions.

For the reasons indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1888: 21889: 11906: 11907: 11916: 11954: 118882026peak 1888 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Chicago v. Knobel83 N.E. 459 (Ill. 1907)
  2. City of Greeley v. Hamman12 Colo. 94 (1888)
  3. City of Chicago v. Lord122 N.E.2d 439 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)
  4. McLain v. City of Chicago127 Ill. App. 489 (1906)
  5. Knowles v. Village of Wayne City31 Ill. App. 471 (1889)
  6. People v. Briggs54 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 266 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1888)

Most recent

  1. City of Chicago v. Lord122 N.E.2d 439 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)
  2. Village of New Athens v. Casperson202 Ill. App. 555 (1916)
  3. City of Chicago v. Knobel83 N.E. 459 (Ill. 1907)
  4. McLain v. City of Chicago127 Ill. App. 489 (1906)
  5. Knowles v. Village of Wayne City31 Ill. App. 471 (1889)
  6. City of Greeley v. Hamman12 Colo. 94 (1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
President of Jacksonville v. Block, 36 Ill. 507 (1865) 12
Graubner v. City of Jacksonville, 50 Ill. 87 (1869) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list