Graham v. People ex rel. Rutledge

Citations

• 111 Ill. 253

Syllabus

<p>1. County judge — when his duty to certify case to circuit court. Where a county judge is interested, as an attorney for heirs of an intestate, in resisting the widow’s award, he is incompetent to act as judge upon the question of allowing the sum awarded her by the appraisers, and it is made his duty by the statute to certify the question to the circuit court, for its action in the premises.</p> <p>2. Same — mandamus to compel him to certify question to circuit court. Where a county judge is interested in an estate of a deceased person, he has no discretion to exercise as to whether he will transfer the matter in dispute to the circuit court for adjudication, and his power is limited to’the simple ministerial duty to cause the record and papers to be certified to that court in conformity with the statute, and mandamus lies to compel him to do so if he refuses.</p> <p>3. Same — interchange of judges — statute construed. The provision of section 1 of the act approved May 31, 1878, for the interchange of county judges of different counties, makes such interchange purely voluntary, and it may be made without any reference to the fact of the interest of the judge whose place is to be taken by the other judge. Such provision does not repeal or modify section 69 of chapter 3, and sections 179 and 180 of chapter 37, of the Revised Statutes.</p> <p>4. Where a county judge was interested, as an attorney, only in a single question arising on exception to the estimate of the widow’s award, it is made his duty by the statute to certify to the circuit court only the question in which he has such interest. In other respects the settlement of the estate may proceed before him.</p> <p>5. Costs — Supreme Court — reversal in part. Where this court affirmed in part a judgment in a mandamus suit, and reversed the same in part, this court directed that each party pay the costs of this court incurred by him.</p>