Martel v. City of East St. Louis

Citations

• 94 Ill. 67

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal corporation—when license protects party from a prosecution. A city can not be allowed to recover a penalty from a person for pursuing a trade or calling, for the privilege of'which the city has received and retains the consideration exacted of him. In such case it is immaterial whether the ordinance under which the privilege was granted was valid or invalid, or whether the agents acting on behalf of the city were de facto or de jure officers, or no officers at all.</p> <p>2. Same—license by defacto officers good, unless money paid is returned. Where a person takes out a license to keep a dram-shop within a city, pursuant to an ordinance of the city, the license being issued by de facto officers of the corporation, and pays into the city treasury the sum exacted therefor, and gives the proper bonds, before the city can maintain an action against him for the penalty for carrying on the business without a license, it must revoke his license and return him his money.</p> <p>3. Same—doctrine of estoppel applies. The doctrine of estoppel in pais applies to municipal corporations, but the public will only be estopped, or not, as justice and right may require. Any positive acts by municipal officers which may have induced the action of the adverse party, and where it would be inequitable to permit the corporation to stultify itself by retracting what its officers have done, will work an estoppel.</p> <p>4. Same—adoption of acts of its officers. Where a city receives and retains money paid by a party for a license to keep a dram-shop, with a knowledge of the purpose for which it was paid, this will be equivalent to an adoption by the city of the acts of the officers who assumed to act on its behalf in issuing the license, and will make such acts its own, although such officers were not de jure officers of the city.</p>