CHARLES E. JONES, State's Attorney, JONES & Lowe, and NEWLIN, PARKER & NEWLIN, for appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court: In 1914 Palestine Township High School District No. 202 was organized. In 1915 Oblong Township High School District No. 203 was organized. Both of these districts were organized under the law of 1911. Thereafter each proceeded to elect a president and board of education, each procured a site and erected a high school building, each issued bonds and made levies to pay the bonds, each employed teachers and had schools during one school year. This was an application to collect taxes to pay the expenses of each of these high schools of said school districts. The objections were overruled in the county court and judgment entered against the property of appellant. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted. There seems to have been no proceeding started to test the validity of either of these districts before the passage of the so-called curative act of June 14, 1917. It is argued at length by appellant that the curative act is unconstitutional. All the questions so raised by counsel have been passed on adversely by this court in several cases. (People v. Madison, 280 Ill. 96; People v. Fifer, id. 506; People v. Stitt, id. 553; People v. Mathews, (post, p. 85.) Under these decisions the curative act was held to validate high school districts organized, as these were, under the act of 1911. The judgment of the county court must therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. CARTWRIGHT, DUNN and DUNCAN, JJ., dissenting. (No. 11784.-Reversed and remanded.) THE PEOPLE ex rel. W. A. Patterson, County Collector, Appellant, vs. E. P. COLRAVY et al. Appellees. Opinion filed December 19, 1917. This case is controlled by the decision in People v. Mathews, (post, p. 85.) CARTWRIGHT, DUNN and DUNCAN, JJ., dissenting. APPEAL from the County Court of Livingston county; the Hon. B. R. THOMPSON, Judge, presiding. J. H. MCFADDEN, State's Attorney, (H. G. GREENEBAUM, of counsel,) for appellant. THOMAS KENNEDY, F. A. ORTMAN, S. R. BAKER, and BERT W. ADSIT, for appellees. Mr. JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court: The county court of Livingston county on June 16, 1917, sustained the objections of appellees to the application of the county collector for judgment against their lands for taxes levied in 1916 by High School District No. 250, on the ground that the district was not a corporation de jure or de facto, having been organized under the unconstitutional High School act of 1911. During the pendency of the application, and before the entry of judgment, the curative act of June 14, 1917, was passed and became effective. The questions presented here are the same as those presented in People v. Mathews, (post, p. 85,) and for the reasons there given the judgment of the county court is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the objections. Reversed and remanded, with directions. CARTWRIGHT, DUNN and DUNCAN, JJ., dissenting. (No. 11669.-Judgment affirmed.) THE PEOPLE ex rel. Bernard Haugens, County Collector, Appellee, vs. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. Opinion filed December 19, 1917. This case is controlled by the decision in People v. Leigh, (ante, p. 17.) CARTWRIGHT, DUNN and DUNCAN, JJ., dissenting. APPEAL from the County Court of Marshall county; the Hon. D. H. GREGG, Judge, presiding. M. L. BELL, A. B. ENOCH, and BARNES & MAGOON, for appellant. ANDREW TRACY, Acting State's Attorney, (CLarence W. HEYL, QUINN & QUINN, and CHARLES V. O'HERN, of counsel,) for appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court: This was a proceeding in the county court of Marshall county involving the validity of the high school taxes alleged to be due and delinquent to Township High School District No. 20, in said county, in the so-called "Henry District." The objections to these taxes were overruled and judgment entered to that effect in the county court. This is an appeal from that judgment to this court. Proceedings were pending to test the validity of the organization of the district at the time of the hearing in the trial court. May 9, 1916, a petition was filed by the county superintendent of schools of Marshall county asking for the organization of high school districts under the act of 1911. It appears from the record that such election was held and the majority of the votes cast were in favor of so organizing this high school district. Thereupon an order was en tered establishing such district under the provisions of said law. Later a board of education was elected and a high school organized. It was to pay the expenses connected with this school that these taxes were levied. It appears from the briefs of counsel in this case that it is identical as to its facts and the questions of law raised with that of People v. Leigh, (ante, p. 17;) that the two cases were heard together in the lower court on substantially the same record, and the same ruling was there made. In People v. Leigh, supra, it was held that the organization of the district there involved was validated by the curative act approved and in force June 14, 1917. On the reasoning of this court in that decision and the cases there cited it must be held the same as to this district, and therefore it necessarily follows that the judgment of the county court in this proceeding was correct. The judgment of the county court will therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. CARTWRIGHT, DUNN and DUNCAN, JJ., dissenting. (No. 11617.-Judgment affirmed.) THE ARCADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, vs. THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al. Defendants in Error. Opinion filed December 19, 1917. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-Industrial Board is not a party in interest. The Industrial Board is not a party in interest so as to be included among the defendants whose places of residence determine the county where the application for a writ of certiorari to review the record of the Industrial Board in a particular case shall be made. (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Industrial Board, post, p. 136, followed.) WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. OSCAR M. TORRISON, Judge, presiding. F. J. CANTY, and J. C. M. CLow, for plaintiff in error. DOUGLAS PATTISON, for defendants in error. Mr. JUSTICE COOKE delivered the opinion of the court: Helen Harbsmeier, administratrix of the estate of Fred C. Harbsmeier, secured an award against the Arcade Manufacturing Company, plaintiff in error, under the Workmen's Compensation act, for the death of her intestate, which award was confirmed by the Industrial Board. The plaintiff in error and Helen Harbsmeier, administratrix, are both residents of Stephenson county, and Fred C. Harbsmeier was an employee of the plaintiff in error and a resident of Stephenson county at the time of his death. Plaintiff in error made application to the circuit court of Cook county for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Industrial Board, upon the theory that the Industrial Board was a party defendant and could be found in Cook county. Service was had upon the Industrial Board in that county and upon the administratrix in Stephenson county. The administratrix challenged the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Cook county, and the court held it did not have jurisdiction and quashed the writ. The cause was then certified as one proper to be reviewed by this court. The only question presented is whether the circuit court of Cook county has jurisdiction to review the record of the Industrial Board, which resolves itself into the question. whether the Industrial Board is a defendant to the writ of certiorari or a party in interest, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation act. This question has received our consideration in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Industrial Board, (post, p. 136,) where we held that the Industrial Board was not a party in interest and was not included among the defendants whose places of residence would determine the county where the application for the writ of certiorari should be made. The Industrial Board |