Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Ill. 264

Burns v. Henderson

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1858

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1858-04-15

Henderson sued Burns before a justice, and recovered judgment. Burns appealed to the Circuit Court, and filed bond with the justice. At the May term, 1857, the court called the cause for trial, to which the defendant objected, for the following reasons : The court has no jurisdiction to try the cause ; the plaintiff has no right to prosecute said cause in this court; this court has no jurisdiction of the parties. The court overruled the objections and called a jury.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1903

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Caton, C. J.

¶1The word shall, in the fourth section of the act of the 9th February, 1855, extending the jurisdiction of the County Court of Peoria county, must be construed to mean may. That section reads: All appeals from the decisions of police magistrates and justices of the peace, made or rendered in said county, shall be taken to said County Court.” To hold this to be imperative, would bring it in conflict with the eighth section of the fifth article of the constitution. That is as follows: “ There shall be two or more terms of the Circuit Court held in each county of this State, at such times as shall be provided by law, and said courts shall have jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity, and in all cases of appeals from all inferior courts.” This confers jurisdiction, in all appeals from all inferior courts, upon the Circuit Courts, independently of any legislative enactment on the subject, and we cannot presume that the legislature intended to take away that jurisdiction, but only to give the County Court concurrent jurisdiction, although, but for this constitutional provision, we should construe the word as imperative, and as conferring upon the County Court exclusive jurisdiction of the appeals mentioned. Wherever it is possible, we must so construe the statutes as to make them harmonize with the constitution, and in order to do this, we must construe the word shall, in the statute quoted, as permissive, and not mandatory.

¶2The judgment is affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.'

/20/ill/264 · .json · Public domain