Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Olson v. Sweitzer

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 9, 1914No. Gen. No. 18,852; Gen. No. 18,853; Gen. No. 18,854PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar E. Heard and Hon. Duane J. Carnes, Judges, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

‘ ‘ The writ of mandamus lies to do what ought to be done, not to undo what oug’ht not to have been done.” Merrill on Mandamus, sec. 42; Sweet v. Conley, 20 R. I. 381; W. C. T. Co. v. Marshall, 49 Tenn. 121; People ex rel. Seeberger v. Rose, 164 Ill. App. 159.

In Ex parte Nash, 19 Q. B. 92, 69 E. C. L. 92, Lord Campbell said: “The writ of mandamus is most beneficial ; but we must keep its operation within bounds, and not grant it at the fancy of all mankind. We grant it when that has not been done which a statute orders to be done;…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Seeberger v. RoseAppellate Court of Illinois · 1911
  2. Wynne v. WarrenTennessee Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Board of Education v. Idle Motors, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1985
  2. People ex rel. Alford v. HendeeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1935
  3. Board of Education v. Idle Motors, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API