Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Turner v. Purviance

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 9, 1883PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county; the Hon. 1ST. M. Laws, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtPillsbury, P. J.

It is urged that the relator has no such interest in the enforcement of the official duty of the respondent as would authorize him to prosecute this proceeding. It was held in Pike County v. State, 11 Ill. 202, that “ where the object of the proceeding is the enforcement of a public right, the people are regarded as the real partjr, and the relator need not show that he has any legal interest in the result.” It is enough that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the right in question enforced. This rule has been approved in City of Ottawa v. The People, 48 Ill. 233;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. County Commissioners v. People ex rel. MetzIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
  2. Council of Glencoe v. People ex rel. OwenIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  3. City of Ottawa v. People ex rel. CatonIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Hall v. People ex rel. RogersIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  5. People ex rel. Weber v. Chicago & Alton RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1880

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Barber v. County of JacksonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
  2. Mammoth City v. SnowUtah Supreme Court · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API