Cincinnati, I.&W. Ry. Co. v. People ex rel. Randolph

• Decision Date: 17 February 1904
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CINCINNATI, I. & W. RY. CO. v. PEOPLE ex rel. RANDOLPH, County Collector.

207 Ill. 566

69 N.E. 938

CINCINNATI, I. & W. RY. CO.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. RANDOLPH, County Collector.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1904.

Appeal from Jasper County Court; F. D. Shamhart, Judge.

Proceedings by the people, on the relation of Taylor Randolph, county collector of Jasper county, against the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Company. From a judgment ordering a sale of the railroad company's property for delinquent taxes, it appeals. Modified.George W. Fisher and Davidson & Isley, for appellant.

The appellant company owns and operates its railway through the townships of Hunt City, Willow Hill, St. Marie, Fox, and the village of Hunt City, in Jasper county, which property was duly assessed for taxation for the year 1902 by the state board of equalization, and taxes were extended thereon by the county clerk of Jasper county according to the several certificates of levy for taxes filed with him for the year 1902. Appellant paid a portion of these taxes, but refused to pay the remainder. The county collector made application to the June term of the county court for judgment and order of sale of this property for such unpaid taxes, together with interest and costs. The appellant appeared by its counsel, and filed objections in writing to the rendition of judgment for such taxes, interest, and costs. The cause was heard by the court at the June term, 1903, and judgment was rendered sustaining the appellant's objections as to certain taxes not here in controversy, and the court overruled its objections and rendered judgment against the property of appellant for the following taxes, to wit: Hunt City township town tax, $27.96; Willow Hill township town tax, $45.90; St. Marie township town tax, $20.91; Willow Hill township road and bridge tax (as to 40-cent levy), $36.73; Fox township road and bridge tax, $16.12; Hunt City village tax, $39.22. The present appeal is prosecuted from the judgment of the county court as to each of the taxes above set forth.

MAGRUDER, J. (after stating the facts).

1. As to the three town taxes: The town tax for the town of Hunt City was levied upon the certificate of the town clerk that the board of town auditors, in regular annual meeting, held September 2, 1902, ordered that the amount of $400 be levied for ‘town purposes.’ The record of Hunt City township, containing the minutes of the annual town meeting held on April 1, 1902, shows that, on motion, and by vote of the electors, a levy of $400 was made for ‘town purposes.’ But it does not appear what the purposes were for which the tax was levied or voted. It does not appear that the purpose was to pay claims audited against the town, nor does it appear that the action of the electors at the town meeting was certified by the town clerk in the manner required by law. Consequently the objection made by the appellant upon the trial below, to the effect that the purpose for which the tax was levied did not appear, and it did not appear that the tax was levied for any purpose for which such town was authorized to levy a town tax, should have been sustained. People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 194 Ill. 51, 61 N. E. 1064;People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 193 Ill. 364, 61 N. E. 1063;Indiana, Decatur & Western Railway Co. v. People, 201 Ill. 351, 66 N. E. 293. In the case of People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., first above cited, we held that the third subdivision of clause 3 of section 3, article 4, of the township organization act (Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 139, par. 40), authorizing electors at a town meeting to raise money by taxation ‘for any other purpose required by law,’ is not authority for sustaining a tax levied by vote of a town meeting ‘for town purposes,’ there being nothing to show the nature of such purposes. It was said in that case that it must always appear that the purpose for which the money is to be raised is one for which the town has authority to raise money by taxation. Such purpose does not here appear.

The same is true as to the certificate of levy for the town tax of the town of St. Marie for 1902, upon which certificate that tax was extended. The certificate shows that at the annual town meeting held on the 1st day of April, 1902, a motion was made that a levy of $200 be made for ‘town purposes,’ and the motion was carried. The town records, containing the minutes of the annual town meeting of April 1, 1902, show that a levy of $200 was made for ‘town purposes.’ As it does not appear what the purposes were, or that the purpose for which the tax was levied was one required or authorizedby law to be carried into execution by the town, the objection presenting this point in the trial court should have been sustained, upon the authority of People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., supra.

As to the town tax of the town or township of Willow Hill, the certificate of the town clerk shows that at the annual town meeting held on the 1st day of April, 1902, a motion was made and seconded, and carried, that a tax of $700 be levied for ‘all town expenses.’ The town record of Willow Hill, containing the minutes of the annual meeting held on the 1st day of April, 1902, shows that a motion was made, seconded, and carried to make a tax levy of $700 to pay the township indebtedness to Hunt City township on the apportionment of the appraisement, ‘and other town expenses.’ There is nothing to show how much of the tax is for the township indebtedness to Hunt City, and how much for ‘other town expenses.’ It does not appear that the indebtedness and expenses are legal claims against the town, to which the appellant company should contribute. Nor does it appear that the board of town auditors ever took action on or audited these claims, if they were in fact legal claims against the town. We have held that the duty of passing upon claims and demands against the town is imposed upon the board of town auditors, and their certificate is made the foundation for the levy of taxes to pay such claims and demands. The attempt by the town meeting to exercise the power of the board of auditors is illegal, and makes the tax void. People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 193 Ill. 364, 61 N. E. 1063;People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 194 Ill. 54, 61 N. E. 1064.

2. As to the two road and bridge taxes: The commissioners of highways of Willow Hill township met, as hereafter stated, and made their levies for road and bridge taxes for the year commencing September 2, 1902-one levy for 40 cents on the $100 in manner and form as is prescribed for the tax under section 119 of [207 Ill. 570]the road and bridge act (3 Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896 [2d Ed.] p. 3596, c. 121, par. 119), and one levy of 20 cents on the $100 valuation on all real, personal, and railroad property, to meet the payment of outstanding orders, which was approved by the town auditing board and the assessor. The certificate of levy of the Willow Hill road and bridge tax, showing the levy of a tax of 40 cents on the $100, was signed by the three highway commissioners, and filed with the county clerk; and it appears from the face of the certificate that the commissioners of highways of the town of Willow Hill proceeded to ascertain, as near as practicable, how much money must be raised in said town by tax on real and personal property for the purposes following during the ensuing year, as required by law, and ascertained and determined the same to be as follows, to wit: ‘(1) For the making and repairing of bridges, $300.00; (2) for the payment of damages by reason of the opening, altering and laying out new roads, $50.00; (3) for the purchase of the necessary tools, implements and machinery for working roads, $50.00; (4) purchasing necessary material for building and repairing roads and...