People ex rel. Farrington v. Whitcomb

Citations

• 55 Ill. 172

Syllabus

<p>1. Remedy—to test the validity of a law extending the territorial limits of a city—quo warranto. The question as to the constitutionality of an act of the legislature which proposes to extend the territorial limits of a city so as to include lands used exclusively for farming purposes, contrary to the wishes of the owners of such lands, can not he raised by a writ of quo warranto, questioning the authority of the city officers to exercise their functions as such within the extended boundary.</p> <p>3. The writ of quo warranto is generally employed to try the right a person claims to an office, not whether his official acts should be confined to a particular locality.</p> <p>3. Nor does it follow, because the question of the constitutionality of a law may arise in determining whether a person is legally in office, that the proceeding by quo warranto may be resorted to for the mere purpose of determining whether a law is constitutional.</p> <p>4 The proper mode of presenting the question as to the validity of such .a law, would seem to be to interpose the objection as a defense against the enforcement of ordinances of the city within the extended boundary, or in case of an attempt to levy and collect taxes therein for city purposes, to apply for an injunction.</p> <p>5. Pka.otioe—whether an objection to the remedy is waived. Upon a demurrer to an answer in a proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto, the respondent may properly raise the question whether the remedy resorted to is the proper one. He does not waive the right to present that question by having answered, there being no issue of fact formed, or trial had.</p>