# People Ex Rel. Christiansen v. Connell

> Illinois Supreme Court · March 17, 1954 · 2 Ill. 2d 332

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884470

## Case

- **Full name:** The People Ex Rel. Borghild Christiansen, Appellant, vs. Francis X. Connell, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Appellee
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 17, 1954
- **Citations:** 2 Ill. 2d 332; 118 N.E.2d 262; 1954 Ill. LEXIS 344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schaefer
- **Judges:** Latham Castle
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884470

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the judicial power cannot be exercised when “there is nothing pending before the court to be decided”

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Schaefer, specially concurring:
I agree with the judgment of the court in so far as it is based upon the non-judicial character of the function to be performed by the judge at the conference contemplated by the statute. But I do not agree that the generalized-exhortation of section 19 of article II of the constitution that “Every person ought to * * * obtain * * * right and justice * * * without delay” invalidates the statute before us. Requirements not unlike those here involved are familiar. For example, leave of court has been a prerequisite 'to the filing of a complaint in quo warranto for many years; (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 112, par. 10) leave of court is required to file a suit in equity to restrain the disbursement of public funds by State officers; (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 102, par. 14) original mandamus proceedings in this court are required by Rule 46 to be instituted by a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap, no, par. 259.46.) So far as I am aware these have not been thought to violate the' admonition of section 19 of article II. To the extent that that section of the constitution may be thought to have a bearing upon the validity of legislation, it adds so little to the due process clause that I would measure its breach, as it seems to me this court did in Clarke v. Storchak, 384 Ill. 564 , by an appraisal of the reasonableness of the particular delay involved in terms of the objective which the legislature sought to accomplish. And so measured, I would conclude that the objection based upon section 19 of article II is not well taken.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884470. Public record. Not legal advice.