In McKinley v. City of Chicago (1938), 369 Ill. 268, 16 N.E.2d 727, the Supreme Court, in reversing the Appellate Court, held that two judges who were successful in recounts were not entitled to compensation for the period that they did not hold the judgeship that they subsequently were determined to have won. The Supreme Court declared that "neither do we believe that the question is an open one in this State." (369 Ill. at 270, 16 N.E.2d at 728.) After citing cases in which employees in similar situations were denied compensation, the Court stated: "The two plaintiffs insist that the rules which we have just discussed apply only to mere positions or employments, not to public elective officers, but we fail to discern the validity of such an argument. On the other hand, it seems to us that these rules apply with greater vigor and more urgent public necessity to offices than to mere employments. If the rules of public policy which we have heretofore announced, and to which we now adhere, are important to grain inspectors and city engineers, they are certainly more vital to the public interest when the matter concerns judges. An election for judges of the municipal court results in the election of twelve candidates receiving the highest number of votes, so that a contest against one is necessarily a contest against all. If the public authorities must pay at their peril whenever a contest is started, then any candidate, even though hopelessly defeated, might throw the entire judicial machinery into disorder by merely starting a contest. Such a rule would require the city and its various disbursing officers to become insurers of the result of an election with which they had nothing to do, or else withhold all salaries until the cumbersome machinery of an election contest could be put in motion and the contest carried through to its conclusion. We consider it much more in the public interest to adhere to our previously indicated rule. It is our opinion that a certificate of election following a regular canvass and the possession of a commission by those officers who are commissioned, fully protects the disbursing officers from further liability if they have paid salaries to such an incumbent." 369 Ill. at 271-272, 16 N.E.2d at 728-729.