Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

114 Ill. 21

Adkinson v. Gahan

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1885

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1885-05-15

M. F. Tuley, Judge, presiding. This was a bill in equity, filed by the complainant, as a citizen and tax-payer of the municipality, to restrain the defendants, as trustees of the town of Lake, from making-payment to one of their number, Thomas Gahan, the supervisor of the town of Lake, pursuant to the following resolution : “Resolved, that the treasurer of the town of Lake be and he is hereby allowed two per cent on all moneys coming into his hands during the fiscal year…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1957

5 state decisions

2018851890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam :

¶1Upon motion of the appellant, supported by a stipulation signed by the parties to the record, this appeal is dismissed at the costs of the appellant. Since the motion and stipulation were filed, an affidavit of certain citizens of the town of Lake who are interested in the questions involved in the litigation, has been filed in opposition, and we are asked, therein, to deny the motion. The affidavit states that the stipulation to dismiss is the result of a collusive and fraudulent agreement between the parties.

¶2It must be borne in mind this is not a suit to enforce public rights, but one in which the rights of private parties (i. e., those to the record,) are alone concerned. The interest of the public is purely incidental,—an interest in the settlement of a legal principle,—just as may happen in any suit between private parties. But in all such cases any other party is at liberty to commence a suit and litigate the same question, if the suit first brought be dismissed before it is there settled. No one but the parties to the suit is liable for the payment of the costs, or directly affected by the result of the dismissal. Suppose we were to overrule the motion, who is responsible for the additional costs that may be incurred ? No indemnity is given, or could legally be required to be given, the appellant, against the additional costs. We are aware of no practice by which a party can be compelled to continue the prosecution of a private suit against hisa will and at his own expense. If, while the suit was pending, it had been alleged and proved that the suit was collusive, we would have dismissed it, promptly, out of court. But ceasing to prosecute an appeal,—ceasing to ask the aid of a court,—is a different thing.

¶3Any party who wishes to re-litigate the questions involved in this record is at perfect liberty to do so. No one was under obligation to await the issue of this litigation for a settlement of those issues, and no one has any vested right in the appeal of the appellant.

¶4The appeal is dismissed.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

/114/ill/21 · .json · Public domain