Almy v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Parties | ROBERT ALMYv.WILLIAM M. HUNT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.
Messrs. KENDALL & IDE, for the appellant.
Messrs. FARWELL & HERRON, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action commenced in the Bureau Circuit Court, by William M. Hunt against Robert Almy, for a breach of covenant in a deed. A large number of pleas were put in to the action, on which various issues were made up. A trial was had, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
It appears, Almy, on the 18th of October, 1865, had sold and conveyed to Hunt, the east one-half of lot 45, in the original town of Princeton, in Bureau county, excepting a strip thirty feet in width off the east side of said east half, and in the deed, Almy covenanted that the described premises were free and clear from all liens, taxes, assessments, and incumbrances of every kind.
Plaintiff claimed that at the time of the sale, the taxes had not been paid for the year 1865, and that he had paid them--the defendant, on request, having neglected and refused to pay them.
The principal issues were upon this point.
Appellant contends the taxes upon the lot were not an incumbrance, and a valid and subsisting lien at the time the deed was executed, for the reason that, by law, the taxes were not levied for that year until the first of November.
A lien for taxes, and an assessment or levy, are different things.
It is the great and overruling idea in all governments, that revenue must be supplied for their support, and all the property of the people is liable to contribute thereto. These contributions are realized through and by the machinery of the taxing power. Our own statute is emphatic in the declaration that real property, shall, in all cases, be liable for the taxes thereon, and human ingenuity has not yet devised any mode of escape from this liability. No alienation of it can shield it from this demand. The owner may change his residence, yet the land remains, and the lien is upon it forever. The action of the board of supervisors, as appellant seems to insist, has nothing to do in the creation of this lien. Their assessment but fixes the amount, the payment of which will discharge the lien. Our statute requires the owners of land shall list it for taxation on the first day of May. On that day, then, so far as transfers of the land are concerned, the lien of the State for taxes, attaches, and by the same statute--section 59 of the revenue act of 1853--it is expressly provided, that every person owning land on that day shall be liable for the taxes due thereon for that year. Scates' Comp., 1063. Thus, the land and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' Security Bank of Park River v. Martin
... ... Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co ... 32 C. C. A. 275, 60 U.S. App. 693, 89 F. 615; Bates v ... Peoples' Sav. & L. Asso. 42 Ohio St. 655; Almy v ... Hunt, 48 Ill. 45 ... The ... taxes in question are valid taxes. The test of the validity ... of an assessment is, Do ... ...
-
Morey Engineering & Construction Company v. St. Louis Artificial Ice Rink Company
...The property itself may be seized and sold, although there may be prior liens or incumbrances upon it." The next cited case, Almy v. Hunt, 48 Ill. 45, the question of liability for taxes as between seller and buyer. It was held that the lien attaches when the assessment is made, and that th......
-
Morey Engineering & Construction Co. v. St. Louis A. Ice Rink Co.
...(R. S. 1879, §§ 6831, 6832; Blossom v. Van Court, 34 Mo. 390 ; McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130; Dunlap v. Gallatin Co., 15 Ill. 7; Almy v. Hunt, 48 Ill. 45; Binkert v. Wabash Co., 98 Ill. 205); the other in favor of creditors, created by the act of the debtor. These two liens have been forecl......
-
United States v. Reese
...thus brought into existence prior to assessment. People ex rel. McCullough v. Deutsche Gemeinde, 249 Ill. 132, 138, 94 N.E. 162; Almy v. Hunt, 48 Ill. 45; Morrison v. Moir Hotel Co., 204 Ill.App. 433. And the Supreme Court has recognized the finality of this ruling in Osterberg v. Union Tru......