Young v. People ex rel. Kochersperger
| Decision Date | 14 February 1898 |
| Citation | 171 Ill. 299,49 N.E. 503 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. PEOPLE ex rel. KOCHERSPERGER, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook county court; O. N. Carter, Judge.
Application by D. H. Kochersperger, treasurer and ex officio collector of Cook county, for a tax judgment against land of Frank O. Young. Young objected, and judgment was entered as asked, from which objector appeals. Affirmed.
Francis A. Riddle, George McA. Miller, and Frank B. Dyche, for appellant.
Newman, Northrup & Levinson, for appellee.
An application was made by the county collector of Cook county for a tax judgment against the lands of the appellant, on account of a delinquent third installment of a special assessment levied by the village of North Harvey. One of the objections filed is that the court confirming the assessment roll was without jurisdiction. On the hearing, judgment was rendered as prayed. This, it is claimed, was error, for the reason that the evidence reveals the fact that the persons who acted as commissioners, and made the assessment, are not the persons who were appointed by the court for that purpose. The judgment of confirmation was introduced, and it contains a recital that the commissioners heretofore appointed by the court to make the assessment have in all things compliedwith the law as to the posting, publishing, and mailing of notice. This is a finding by the court as to the existence of the facts which give it jurisdiction over the property specially assessed in that proceeding. Such a finding, under our decisions, is conclusive in a collateral proceeding. It is claimed, however, that this recital is overcome by the production of a publisher's certificate and two affidavits, and the exhibits thereto attached. The order of the county court shows that D. J. McMahon, Charles E. Smith, and William Lee were appointed as such commissioners. The notices attached to said affidavits and certificate purport to have been given by H. Moynihan, Charles E. Smith, and William Lee. The trial court admitted the papers in evidence, but, on the hearing, evidently considered them insufficient to overcome the recital; its finding being in favor of the people. This conclusion was correct. The affidavits and certificate were, at most, merely evidence, or, as the statute says, ‘prima facie evidence,’ on which the court may or may not have acted in arriving at its finding in the special assessment proceeding as to its jurisdiction. These papers cannot be permitted, on a collateral attack, to contradict and overthrow the solemn judgment of the court. Casey v. People, 165 Ill. 49, 46 N. E. 7;Hertig v. People, 159 Ill. 237, 42 N. E. 879. The two cases of McChesney v. People, 145 Ill. 614, 34 N. E. 431, and 148 Ill. 221, 35 N. E. 739, are cited as maintaining a contrary rule. This is a misapprehension. It is true that in those cases the lack of jurisdiction was treated as shown by the affidavit and certificate, but, as we have heretofore said, speaking of these cases, ‘No point was made or considered that the judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
... ... Watson & Young, and E. T. Conmy, for appellant ... There ... is no ... 877, 19 S.Ct. 580; Chicago ... Theological Seminary v. People, 189 Ill. 439, 59 N.E. 980 ... Where ... the mandate ... ...
-
Brown v. Ball
... ... Affirmed ... Watson, ... Young, & Conmy, for appellant ... This ... plaintiff having ... v. Carson, 169 Ill ... 247, 48 N.E. 402; Markely v. People, 171 Ill. 260, ... 49 N.E. 502; Young v. People, 171 Ill. 299, 49 N.E ... ...
-
People v. Chas. Levy Circulating Co.
...v. Griffey (147 Ill. 496, 35 N.E. 732), supra; Hanna v. Read, 102 Ill. 596; Sawyer v. Nelson, 160 Ill. 629, 43 N.E. 728; Young v. People, 171 Ill. 299, 49 N.E. 503; Stone v. Salisbury, 209 Ill. 56, 70 N.E. 605. This principle is sometimes called estoppel by verdict, and the estoppel is equa......
-
Bd. of Directors of Chicago Theological Seminary v. People ex rel. Raymond
...150 Ill. 568, 37 N. E. 892;Railway Co. v. Carson, 169 Ill. 247, 48 N. E. 402;Markley v. People, 171 Ill. 260, 49 N. E. 502;Young v. People, 171 Ill. 299, 49 N. E. 503. The burden of proof is always upon the defendant, who pleads res judicata because of a former judgment, to set up that jdug......