People ex rel. Graff v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1910
• Citation: 93 N.E. 422,247 Ill. 340
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. GRAFF, County Collector, v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

247 Ill. 340

93 N.E. 422

PEOPLE ex rel. GRAFF, County Collector,

v.CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1910.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; Thomas Henshaw, Judge.

Action by the People, on the relation of Charles B. Graff, County Collector, against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and relator appeals, and defendant assigns cross-error. Affirmed.Robert Tilton, State's Atty., Bellatti, Barnes & Bellatti, and M. T. Layman, for appellant.

Kirby & Wilson (J. A. Connell, of counsel), for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellant, as sheriff and ex officio collector of Morgan county, applied to the county court of said county for judgment against property of appellee, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, assessed in the name of the St. Louis, Rock Island & Chicago Railroad Company and the Jacksonville & St. Louis Railroad Company, and appellee filed objections to that part of the county tax in excess of 54 cents on each $100 of the assessed valuation of its property, and also to the excess above 9 cents on each $100 of said valuation of the taxes levied for park purposes and library purposes, respectively. The county tax was extended at the rate of 75 cents, and the library and park taxes were each extended at the rate of 12 cents, on each $100 of assessed valuation, and the ground of objection was that they were not extended under the provisions of the amended revenue act in force July 1, 1909. Laws 1909, p. 323. The appellee had paid the library tax as extended, which was $9.93 in excess of the lawful rate under said act, and appellee alleged that it was paid through mistake and oversight. The court sustained the objections to the county tax and park tax, but refused to credit the appellee with the alleged overpayment on account of the library tax. This appeal was prosecuted from the judgment, and the appellee assigns a cross-error upon the refusal of the court to allow a set-off of the overpayment on the library tax against the balance due on another tax.

Counsel for appellant do not in this case dispute the validity of the Juul law, or that it was the legal duty of the clerk to obey it but claim that the appellee was precluded from objecting to the tax by a former adjudication of the circuit court of Morgan county concerning the same subject-matter. The affaird of Morgan county are managed by a board of county commissioners, and appellant offered in evidence the record and files of a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court, in which the county commissioners, the park commissioners, and the officials of the public library were petitioners and the county clerk was defendant. The court sustained an objection to the evidence and appellant excepted to the ruling, which raises the only question under the errors assigned by appellant.

The suit was begun and finished on the same day, and the proceedings consisted of the petition, a demurrer, and judgment. The petition filed on December 6, 1909, alleged the levies by the petitioners of taxes at the rates at which the same were extended, and that the county clerk had refused to extend the same at such rates, but threatened to extend them at lower rates by authority of the act before referred to, known as the ‘Juul law,’ and the prayer was for a writ of mandamus commanding the clerk to extend the taxes at the rates certified to him. The clerk filed an entry of appearance, agreeing that the cause should stand for immediate hearing, and the state's attorney filed a demurrer to the petition. The demurrer, confessing the facts alleged in the petition, raised an issue of law; but the court did not sustain or overrule the demurrer or determine that issue, except inferentially, by entering a judgment awarding the writ. The judgment entered the same day commanded the county clerk to extend such a rate of taxes as would produce the aggregate amount levied and certified by the petitioners; but no mandate was issued on the judgment. If the judgment was res judicata between the people, represented by the collector and the appellee, the court committed an error in not receiving it in evidence; but if it was not res judicata, it was not competent for any purpose, and no error was committed.

A matter which has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction is deemed to be finally and conclusively settled in any subsequent litigation in a court of concurrent jurisdiction between the same parties, where the same question arises. Neither the parties to an action nor persons in privity with them can relitigate any fact or question actually or directly in issue in such suit, which was passed upon and determined by a court of competent...