PRESTON
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO

U.S. | 1913-01-06
No. 195
226 U.S. 447 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 293 · 33 S. Ct. 177 · SCDB 1912-044 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2247
Cited by 16 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Preston, a Chicago police officer, sought a writ of mandamus to restore himself to the city's police pay rolls after being wrongfully removed, claiming he was entitled to civil service protections and challenging his removal as a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed dismissal of the mandamus petition, holding that Preston was not in the classified civil service and was therefore subject to removal, and that his claim was also barred by laches. The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the writ of error, finding the state court's determination that Preston lacked civil service status presented no federal question and that laches independently barred relief, while expressly declining to address whether Preston's pension fund contributions constituted protected property.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice.White.

Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by

Mr. Chief Justice.White.

Upon the assertion that he had been' wrongfully dropped “from'the pay roll of the policemen of the City of Chicago,” plaintiff in error commenced proceedings in mandamus in the state court to compel the placing of his name upon the. said pay rolls to the end that he might •thereafter draw the. pay alleged to be-due him as a police pátrolman “as the other police patrolmen in said city of Chicago are paid.” This writ of error is prosecuted to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois (246 Illinois, 26); affirming a judgment sustaining a derqurrer to the petition in mandamus and denying-the writ.

Among other contentions made by the plaintiff in error and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Illinois was one to the effect that he had become an officer of the classified service and entitled to the protection, against removal conferred by an act. styled the Civil Service Act and that hence his removal from office without written charges preferred against him and without notice and an opportunity to. be heard amounted to a denial of due process of law within the purview of the state constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But the court below held these'claims not main-, tainable on the ground that upon a proper'construction of the state statutes the petitioner was-not in the classified service, and was subject to removal. This ruling is binding upon us and presents no Federal question. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548. Even, however, if we were at liberty to disregard the action of the state, court and attribute to the plaintiff in error the status claimed by him, a» in addition the court-below held that the right to the relief prayed was in any event barred by long delay and laches, this would be sufficient to prevent us from reviewing the alleged Federal question. Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205, 207.

It is strenuously insisted, in argument that the plaintiff in error was entitled to participate in a police pension fund to which he had contributed from his wages for a long period of time, and therefore to remove him was additionally to deprive him of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the specific relief prayed was a writ of mandamus to restore plaintiff in error to the pay rolls as a policeman. What if any rights-in. the pension fund referred to were protected by the Constitution • of the’ United • States we therefore may not here consider, and that question from a Federal point of view is not concluded by the judgment dismissing the writ of error which we shall enter. Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Enter. Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1917)
    …68 U. S. 674, 683-684. The questions presented, other than those relating to the validity of the state board’s adjudication, all turned exclusively upon the law of the State, and the state court’s decision of them is controlling. Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447; St. Louis & Kansas City Land Co. v. Kansas City, 241 U. S. 419, 427; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116. The reference to the equal protection clause evidently is inadvertent, for there is no claim of unwarranted or arbitrary discrim…
  • Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. State of La., 233 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1914)
  • Wood v. Chesborough, 228 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1913)
    …pport the judgment of the state court, there can be no review by this court. And certainly the application of laches and the statute of limitations does not present a Federal question. Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468; Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, 460. Plaintiffs, however, advance their contention with confidence and attempt to support-it by a citation of cases. We need not review them all. They do not impugn the doctrine that there may be a. non-Federal question decided broad enough to sup…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (19 total)

View all 19 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw