(145 N.E.) community consolidated district, means to sep- [ pellee, the county superintendent of schools, arate or take it from such district, and does failed and refused to make an order detachnot authorize taking thereof from center of ing the former school district from the conconsolidated district or leaving latter in sepa-solidated district, to file a map of the school rate parts. districts involved in the change of boundaries, 10. Schools and school districts 34-For- and to order an election for a board of dimer district held separated from consolidat-rectors in common school district No. 7; and ed district within statute. Detachment of former school district two miles north to south and three miles east to west from districts adjoining it on south he'd separation thereof from consolidated district, within Laws 1923, p. 584, § 84g, subsec. 4. 11. Mandamus 74(2) Proper remedy to compel performance of county superintendent's duty to call school election. that a demand in writing upon him to perform these duties, as prescribed by the statute, had been made but that he refused to comply. The prayer of the petition was for a writ of mandamus to compel him forthwith to perform these several duties. The county superintendent demurred to the petition on the ground that the amendatory act as a whole, and subsection 4 of section 84g in Mandamus is proper remedy to compel perparticular, are unconstitutional. The court formance of county superintendent's duty under Laws 1923, p. 584, § 84g, subsec. 4, to call held the subsection, which provided for the election for detachment of former school dis-detachment of a common school district from trict or other territory from consolidated a consolidated school district, unconstituschool district on petition of one-half of legal voters of such territory. Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County; Frank Lindley, Judge. Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Michael Leimbach and others, against E. H. Lukenbill, County Superintendent of Schools. Petition dismissed, and relators appeal. Reversed and remanded. Harold F. Trapp, of Lincoln, for appellants. DE YOUNG, J. Michael Leimbach, Lee Waddell, Louis Leimbach, Louis Buehler, W. H. Yauch, and Herman Litterly, in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, filed their petition for mandamus in the circuit court of Logan county against E. H. Lukenbill, county superintendent of schools of that county. They alleged in their petition that they were residents, legal voters, and taxpayers of the territory, which, prior to April 23, 1920, had been common school district No. 7 of Logan county; that on that day a community consolidated school district, composed of district No. 7 and common school districts Nos. 9 and 10, was organized and designated as community consolidated school district No. 10, in the county of Logan and state of Illinois; that former common school district No. 7 had been composed of sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 in township 18 north, range 1 west of the third principal meridian; that proceedings had been taken to detach former school district No. 7 in accordance with the fourth subsection of section Sig of the act to amend sections 84a, 84b, 84, 84d, Sie, 84f, and 84g of "An act to establish and maintain a system of free schools," and to add sections 84h and 84i thereto (Laws of 1923, p. 584); that the election called and held for that purpose resulted in the casting of 50 votes in favor of detaching the school district, and none against it; that the ap tional, sustained the demurrer, dismissed the petition for the writ of mandamus at the cost of the petitioners, and allowed an ap peal to this court. Section 84g, as amended in 1923 (Cahill's Stat. 1923, c. 122, par. 91, p. 3065), is as fol "2d. To detach the territory of a former common school district from any community consolidated school district and organize the same into a common school district, upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the legal voters residing in the territory described in the petition. "3d. To detach territory from any community consolidated school district and annex the same to an adjacent community consolidated school district upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the legal voters residing within the territory described in the petition. "4th. If one-half of the legal voters of a former common school district shall file with the county superintendent of schools a petition asking that a vote be taken in such district on the question of detaching from a community consolidated school district, then the county superintendent of schools shall within (30) thirty days from the date of filing of said petition call an election in said former school district and, if three-fourths of the legal voters of such district shall vote in favor of detach For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes ment then the county superintendent of schools | 584. Section 84g, as so amended, provides, shall thereupon detach said territory and or- not only for the annexation of territory adjaganize the same into a common school district. cent to a community consolidated school dis"Within thirty days after a community con-trict, but also for the detachment of the tersolidated school district shall have been estab lished, or after any change is made in the ritory of a former school district, or other boundaries of any district or districts, the territory, from such a district. The organcounty superintendent of schools shall make ization of community consolidated school disand file with the county clerk of the county or tricts was first authorized by the act of 1919. counties, a map of the community consolidated The disconnection of territory from such disschool district or districts established or in-tricts, under prescribed conditions, was provolved in any change of boundary." vided by the amendment of 1923. [1] Section 81g, as amended, does not in To sustain the judgment of the circuit express terms provide that it shall be applicourt it is contended by appellee that (1) sec- cable only to community consolidated distion 84g as amended in 1923 is applicable tricts organized after the amended act beonly to community consolidated school dis- came effective. If that were true, all such tricts organized after it became effective, and districts organized between July 1, 1919, and for that reason has no application to the dis- July 1, 1923, would be unable to change their trict in question, which was organized on boundaries, however necessary such change April 23, 1920, under the act of 1919; (2) the might be to aid in carrying out the constituprovisions of subsection 4 of section 84g are tional mandate to provide a thorough and so uncertain that their meaning cannot be efficient system of free schools. By the act ascertained and the subsection is incapable of 1919 community consolidated school disof enforcement; (3) subsection 4 of section tricts were organized under the direction of 84g is permissive, vesting discretion in the the county superintendent of schools. Amendcounty superintendent of schools, and is not ed section 84g provides that all petitions for mandatory; and (4) if subsection 4 of sec- the detachment of territory from such a distion 84g is mandatory, it is unconstitutional trict shall be presented to the county superinbecause it violates section 2 of article 2, sec- tendent "under whose direction the district tion 22 of article 4, and section 1 of article was established." This language applies to 8 of the Constitution. districts already organized as well as to disThe act of 1919 (Laws 1919, p. 904) pro-tricts to be created in the future. The vided for the organization of community con- amended section gives the county superinsolidated school districts. The initial peti-tendent exclusive power, in his discretion, in tion to organize such a district was required specified cases, "to change the boundaries to be filed with the county superintendent of of community consolidated school districts.” schools, who called and gave notice of the The power so conferred is broad enough to election, designated the polling places, and include districts organized before as well as appointed the judges and clerks of election. after the passage of the amended act. The If at the election a majority of the legal detachment of the territory of former school votes was cast in favor of creating a com- districts is authorized by the second and munity consolidated school district, such dis- fourth subsections of the amended section. trict was deemed duly organized, and the To make provision for the disconnection of county superintendent was required to file the territory of a former school district at with the county clerk a map of the consoli- the time these subsections became effective dated district. Immediately after the forma- necessarily included a district which had be tion of such a district the county superin- come part of a community consolidated tendent was directed to call an election for school district prior to that time. The apthe purpose of electing a board of education plication of section 84g, as amended in 1923, of the district; petitions for nomination of to districts then established does not change candidates for president and members of the existing rights. Amended section 84g disfirst board were required to be filed with closes no legislative intent to confine the him; he designated the polling places, ap-right to detach territory from community conpointed the judges and clerks of election, fur-solidated school districts solely to such disnished all the election supplies, and the re-tricts as might be organized after July 1, turns of the election were made to him. The act further provided, by section 84g, for the annexation of adjacent territory to community consolidated school districts by an election inaugurated by petition and called by and held under the supervision of the county superintendent of schools. The act of 1919, however, made no provision for the dissolution of a community consolidated school district or the detachment of territory there from. Each of the sections of the act of 1919 was amended in 1923. Laws 1923, p. 1923. The necessity and propriety of extending that right to all community consolidated school districts, whether organized before or after the amendment of 1923, are obvious, and it was the legislative purpose to do so. [2] It is further contended that subsection 4 of section 84g is incapable of enforcement because it contains no express provisions governing the holding of the election. In the organization of a community consolidated school district the time and places of posting and the forms of the notice of election (145 N.E.) to the county superintendent's discretion. If that were true, no useful purpose would be served by the enactment of subsection 4, because its more exacting requirements would lead petitioners for the disconnection of a former school district to invoke the provisions of the second subsection. Each subsection has its purpose. One provides a summary method by a petition merely signed by two-thirds of the legal voters, subject to the county superintendent's discretion; the other requires an election by a larger proportion of the voters, and is mandatory in its pro visions. "The most important purpose of the construction of all the parts of a statute together and with reference to one another is that of giving, by the means of such comparison, a sensible and intelligent effect to each without permitting any one to nullify any other and to harmonize every detailed provision of the statute with the general purpose or particular design which the whole is intended to subserve." Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, § 40. Subsection 4 of section 84g is mandatory and not discretionary. are specified by section 84b; provision is made by section 84c for the polling places, the judges and clerks of election, and the form of the ballot; and by section 84d the county superintendent of schools is required to furnish all the supplies and equipment necessary to conduct the election, and the returns of the election must be made to him. To discontinue a community consolidated school district the election required for that purpose is by section 841 to be conducted in the same manner as is the election for the organization of such a district. Moreover, that section 84g is an integral part of the whole act as amended in 1923 is shown by the last paragraph of the section, which provides that within 30 days after a community consolidated school district shall have been established, or after any change is made in the boundaries of any district, the county superintendent shall file with the county clerk a map of the district established or involved in any change of boundary. While the preceding paragraphs of the section have reference solely to the annexation and disconnection of territory from community consolidated school [5] The contention that subsection 4 of secdistricts, the concluding paragraph is not tion 84g violates section 2 of article 2 of confined to these subjects, but includes within the Constitution is based on the fact that no its terms the organization of such districts. notice is required to be given to the authorThis paragraph exemplifies the interrelation ities or the people of the other districts conof the several sections of the act. Subsection stituting the consolidated district, and that 4 should be read with or as a supplement due process of law extends to this proceedto sections 84b, 84c, and 84d, which specifying, by which citizens are deprived of propthe manner in which an election shall be erty rights without a hearing. School disheld. Such, we believe, was the legislative tricts are created as auxiliaries of the state intent. People v. Minnie Creek Drainage for the purposes of education, within the District, 311 Ill. 228, 142 N. E. 463. Indeed, control of the General Assembly, which may the appellee held the same view, for the rec- create or divide them at its discretion. They ord shows that he conducted the election for are agencies of the state, and individuals the detachment of former common school dis- have no property rights in them. There is trict No. 7 in exact conformity with the pro- no constitutional limitation imposed on the visions of those sections. Subsection 4 of Legislature with reference to the formation section 84g is neither uncertain nor incapable of school districts, and it may provide for of enforcement. the organization or consolidation of such districts or change them as it deems best for the public interest, subject only to express constitutional limitations. Greenleaf v. Trustees, 22 Ill. 236; People v. Board of Education, 255 Ill. 568, 99 N. E. 659; People v. Exton, 298 Ill. 119, 131 N. E. 275. [3, 4] The second and fourth subsections of section 84g provide for the detachment of the territory of a former school district from a community consolidated school district. Subsection 2 merely requires for that purpose a petition signed by two-thirds of the legal voters residing in the territory. If the county superintendent in the exercise of his discretion should grant the prayer of the petition, the detachment, under the second subsection, becomes effective, and the detached territory is organized into a common school district, but under subsection 4, the subject-matter of which is the same, the petition of one-half of the legal voters of the territory requires the county superintendent to call an election, at which the question is submitted, and, if three-fourths of the legal votes are cast in favor of detachment, the county superintendent "shall thereupon detach said territory and organize the same into a common school district." The proceedings under both subsections cannot be subject [6, 7] Another contention is that subsection 4 of section 84g violates section 22 of article 4 of the Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing local or special laws in certain cases. The subsection attacked is neither local nor special, but operates in every part of the state where a community consolidated school district exists. People v. Diekmann, 285 Ill. 97, 120 N. E. 490. Even if the subsection were both local and special, its validity would not be affected, because the prohibition is only against such laws in the cases enumerated in the twenty-second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. [8-10] Nor is subsection 4 of section 84g in any sense contrary to section 1 of article Where there are two provisions, one general, and designed to apply to cases generally, and another particular, and relating only to one subject, particular provision must prevail and be treated as exception to general provi 8 of the Constitution, which is a mandate to ] 3. Statutes 194-Particular provisions prethe General Assembly to provide a thorough vails over general. and efficient system of free schools whereby all children of this state may receive a good common school education. When detached from a consolidated district a common school will be maintained in compliance with the mandate. The authority given by the subsection is to detach a former school district from a community consolidated district, which means to separate the district or to take it from the consolidated district. The word does not mean or authorize the taking of a former school district out of the center of a consolidated district or to leave the latter in separate parts. This district was held valid in People v. Downey, 305 Ill. 153, 137 N. E. 124, by virtue of a validating act, and a map of the district was there given which shows that former school district No. 7 was two miles in length from north to south and three miles wide from east to west, adjoining districts Nos. 9 and 10 on the south. To separate former school district No. 7 from the consolidated district is within the terms of the statute. [11] The appellee, as county superintendent of schools, has a specific duty to perform which is defined by statute. He has no discretion to determine whether he will or will not obey the law. His refusal in this case was without legal justification, and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel performance of that duty. The court erred in sus taining the demurrer and dismissing the peti ⚫tion. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded. (314 Ill. 74) sion. 4. Highways 1302, New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series-Opening and closing polls early held not ground to enjoin issue of bonds and levy of additional tax. 15d, was opened one hour earlier and closed That election under Roads and Bridges Act, two hours earlier than it should have been, furnished no ground for enjoining issuance of bonds, or levy of additional tax for state aid roads, in absence of showing that legal voters were deprived of right to vote. 5. Elections 41-Actual notice to great body of electors of special election is sufficient. Where great body of electors have actual notice of time and place of holding special election and of question submitted, election notice is sufficient, particularly where no prejudice is shown. Bill by the Natural Products Company against the County of Du Page and others. NATURAL PRODUCTS CO. v. DU PAGE Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff ap COUNTY et al. (No. 15550.) (Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 28, 1924.) 1. Highways 99-Proceeding for building of state aid roads. Roads and Bridges Act, § 15d, authorizing county to build, or let contracts for state aid roads, provides whole method therefor, and compliance with sections 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, is unnecessary. 2. Highways 99-County may build state aid roads and issue bonds without state highway commission having furnished plans, specifications, and estimates. Under Roads and Bridges Act, § 15d, contracts for building state aid roads in county are to be let by county, though state reserves right to have contracts completed according to specifications and plans of its own suggestion, and though such plans, specifications, and estimates may be furnished by state highway commission at time of letting of contract, they are not conditions precedent to vote for bonds and for levying special tax. peals. Affirmed. Harry S. Mecartney, of Chicago (Edmund J. Reynolds, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant. C. W. Reed, State's Atty., of Naperville, (Horace S. Oakley, of Chicago,-and Joseph A. Reuss, of Naperville, of counsel), for appellees. DUNCAN, C. J. Appellant, the Natural Products Company, a resident taxpayer of Du Page county, filed its bill in the circuit court of said county against the county of Du Page, the Northern Trust Company, the treasurer, clerk, and all the supervisors of said county, to enjoin the issuing of $1,350,000 of road bonds and the levying of an additional tax for the payment of the principal and interest on the bonds of the county of Du Page. The cause was heard by three circuit judges sitting together, by agreement of the parties. The court denied the For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes (145 N.E.) injunction, and dismissed the bill for want | sale it was the highest bidder. Pending the of equity. adjudication thereon. The contentions of appellant are that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed because (1) the county board did not comply with sections 18, 20, 21, 22, and 24 of the Roads and Bridges Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 121, §§ 22, 24, 25, 26, 28); (2) the notice calling the special election should have stated that the polls would open at 8 o'clock in the morning and close at 7 o'clock p. m.; (3) the road funds from which appropriations were heretofore made by the state to pay one-half the cost of construct clerical work connected with the counting The facts are not in dispute. In Novem- and delivery of the bonds so sold, defendants ber, 1922, the board of supervisors of Du were for the first time advised that the Page county passed a resolution to borrow proceedings to attack the validity of the $1,350,000 on the credit of the county, and bonds would be started on May 1, 1923, and to levy an additional tax of 40 cents on each on the advice of counsel the Northern Trust $100 assessed valuation of property in the Company and the county deferred any furcounty for 20 years, beginning with the year ther action on the delivery of the bonds 1923, to pay said indebtedness, for the pur-pending the filing of the bill herein and the pose of improving and constructing state aid roads in the county. The resolution gave the name and number of each state aid road to be constructed, described the same, stated the length thereof in miles, and furnished an estimate of the cost thereof. The total length of the roads to be constructed is a fraction over 100 miles. The roads to be constructed were all described as having an 18-foot pavement upon a 34-foot graded roadway. Two of the roads were to be surfaced with cement concrete pavement, and the rest of them with macadam pavement with a bituminous binder. The resolutioning and improving state aid roads have been provided for a special election to be held on Wednesday, November 29, 1922, for the purpose of a vote of the people of the county for or against the bonds and for or against the special tax to pay the bonds and interest. The vote on the bonds and the special tax were to be had under the provisions of section 15d of the Roads and Bridges Act. On the same day the resolution was adopted by the county board a copy thereof was taken to the department of public works and buildings at Springfield, and that department returned the resolution with this indorsement thereon: "Approved November 1, 1922. Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways, C. R. Miller, Director. Frank T. Sheets, Sup't of Highways." diverted and appropriated for other purposes, and the county board was without authority to issue bonds in anticipation of state aid. Section 18 of the Roads and Bridges Act provides that: com "Whenever the commission shall have made their preliminary order * in favor of the construction or improvement of a public highway or section thereof, the * mission shall direct the state highway engineer, or the assistant state highway engineer to cause proper surveys to be made and to prepare suitable maps, plans, specifications and estimates of cost of the proposed improvement," etc. Section 20 provides that: "Whenever the surveys, plans, specifications and estimates of the proposed improvement are fully completed and determined, the state highway engineer shall make a complete report thereof and deliver the same to the state highway commission, and shall also transmit a copy thereof to the county board of the county wherein it is proposed to construct the improvement." Section 21 provides that upon receiving the surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates aforesaid the state highway commission shall finally determine whether it will authorize the construction of the proposed improvement as a state aid road, and cause a copy of such determination to be transmitted to the county board. Section 22 provides that the county board, after notice of such decision of the state highway commis The copy of the resolution, with said indorsement, was returned and filed in the office of the county clerk of Du Page county. On November 7, 1922, the county clerk issued an election notice calling a special election to vote upon the questions of issuing the bonds and authorizing the additional tax levy. This notice provided that the polls should be open at 7 o'clock in the morning and continue open until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. At the election there were cast 2,058 votes for and 1,265 against the issuance of the bonds and the levying of the additional tax. The county then executed by its officers and agents, and was intending to deliver, $600,000 face value, of the bonds to the Northern Trust Company, which had agreed to pay therefor $602,500, together | sion, shall determine whether it will authorwith any accrued interest thereon from May 1, 1923, the date of the bonds, to the date of their delivery, and as a guaranty of good faith had deposited with the county the sum of $12,000 at the time it made its bid for the bonds at the sale thereof and at which ize the proceedings necessary to enable the county to contribute one-half of the cost required for the construction of such state aid road, etc. Section 24 provides that in case the county finally determines to make provision for constructing the state aid road |