City of Olney v. Harvey & Boyd

Citations

• 50 Ill. 453

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal corporations—effect of a change in their organization, in respect to pre-existing indebtedness. Where, by an act of the legislature, an incorporated town is changed tó a city, the municipality remains the same, under its new organization as a city, as when under its former condition as a town, and any debt incurred by the corporation while a town would continue to be the debt of the corporation under its new organization; such a transition from a town to a city does not work the dissolution or civil death of the corporation, so as to extinguish its indebtedness.</p> <p>2. Judgments—power of the court over them at a subsequent term. Where a judgment has been rendered in a cause, which is a nullity, as when it was rendered against a city council instead of against the city itself, it is not error for the court to set aside such void judgment at a subsequent term, the court not having lost its jurisdiction of the cause by reason of such void judgment being entered.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction—upon the change in the organization of a municipal corporation—pending a suit against the same. In a suit brought against a town, a trial resulted in favor of the defendant; the plaintiff thereupon brought the case to the Supreme Court, where the judgment below was reversed and the cause remanded; pending the suit in the Supreme Court, the town was changed by legislative enactment into a city: Held, that as the town and the city were substantially the same corporation, when the case was remanded and notice given to the official authorities of the city, the court had the same jurisdiction over it that it would have had over the town, had the style of the corporation remained unchanged.</p> <p>4. Mandamus—when it will lie. A writ of mandamus will lie to compel a municipal corporation to pay a judgment rendered against it, there being no other adequate remedy, as an execution cannot be levied upon the property of such a corporation.</p>