Anderson v. Chicago & E.I.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1948
• Docket Number: No. 30439.,30439.
• Citation: 399 Ill. 520,78 N.E.2d 265
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. ANDERSON v. CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO.

399 Ill. 520

78 N.E.2d 265

PEOPLE ex rel. ANDERSON

v.CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO.

No. 30439.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 18, 1948.

Appeal from Moultrie County Court; Rodney A. Scott, Judge.

Proceeding by the People on relation of Claude Anderson, County Collector, for a judgment on certain taxes levied. From a judgment and order overruling objections by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company to relator's application, objector appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

J. L. McLaughlin and White & Ingram, all of Sullivan, for appellant.

Joseph C. Munch, State's Atty., and Frank L. Wolf, both of Sullivan, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company from an order of the county court of Moultrie County striking objections, and entering judgment against the appellant for the taxes of 1945 to the amount of $4,702.24.

On October 9, 1946, appellant filed objections to certain taxes levied against it for the year 1945, specifying in detail the nature of the objections, and the particular taxes objected to. Such objections were subsequently set for hearing on July 11, 1947. Upon the date of the hearing a stipulation of facts was presented to counsel for the objector to the effect the People had introduced in evidence the delinquent tax list, and the judgment, sale, forfeiture, and redemption record of Moultrie County, a collector's sworn report of the list of delinquent lands, proof of publication thereof and of notice of the application for judgment and order of sale, and that the People had made a prima facie case thereby. This stipulation was signed by counsel for both parties, and presented to the court. Thereupon counsel for the People presented a written motion to strike the objections, and to prohibit the introduction of any evidence in support thereof on the ground that the collector's receipt, showing payment of 75 per cent of the taxes, together with its protest, did not accompany the objections, as required by law, and it had therefore not complied with section 235 of the Revenue Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 120, par. 716.

The objector immediately made an oral motion to file its written amendment to its objections to incorporate therein the receipt of the collector, showing that the objector had paid its taxes under protest. A docket entry was made by the judge, which shows that this request was denied. Thereupon counsel for objector requested the court to reserve its ruling upon the motion to strike objections until he had time to prepare and file a written motion to amend the objections, and the court thereupon continued the cause until July 14, 1947.

On July 12, 1947, the objector filed a written motion, together with proof of service, for leave to file an amendment to its objections, and attached to the proposed amendment the tax receipt showing the payment of taxes under protest, and that the county collector had received payment of the taxes objected to. When the cause came on for hearing on July 14, 1947, the court heard the arguments of counsel on the motion for leave to file the amendment, and at the close of the argument entered its ruling, granting the motion to strike the objections, and denying the objector's motion for leave to file an amendment, and held that appellant was not entitled to be heard because the objections were not accompanied by the protest and the receipt for the payment of taxes.

The pertinent sections of the Revenue Act involved in this case are sections 194 and 235. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 120, pars. 675 and 716.) In determining the issue in this case it is necessary to consider the history of these sections. Section 194, among other things, recites the following: ‘If any person shall desire to object pursuant to the provisions of section 235 of this Act, to all or any part of a real propertytax for any year, for any reason other than that the real estate is not subject to taxation, he shall first pay at least 75 per cent of the tax. Such payment shall be accompanied by a writing, substantially in the following form: * * *. The person protesting shall present to the collector two copies of the written protest signed by himself. The collector shall write or stamp the date of receiving the same upon the copies, and sign the same, one of which copies he shall retain and the other he shall deliver to the person making the payment under protest.’

Section 235 provides: ‘The court shall examine said list, and if defense (specifying, in writing, the particular cause of objection) be offered by any person interested in any of said lands or lots, to the entry of judgment against the same, the court shall hear and determine the matter in a summary manner, without pleadings, and shall pronounce judgment as the right of the case may be: Provided, that no person shall be permitted to offer any such defense unless such writing specifying the particular cause of objection shall be accompanied by an official original or duplicate tax collector's receipt, showing that at least 75 per cent of all taxes to which objection is made have been paid under protest pursuant to the provisions of section 194 of this Act; * * *.’

Before the amendment of the Revenue Act in 1933 there was no provision for the payment of taxes under protest, and if taxes were paid under protest such payments could not be refunded to the taxpayer, even though the objections were sustained. At that time any taxpayer could file objections without restriction upon the right to do so. As a result, during the depression and immediately prior to that time, concerted failure to pay taxes by organized groups of taxpayers and the filing of blanket objections clogged the dockets of the courts and severely impaired the functioning of all tax districts. We have previously held that sections 194 and 235 of this act must be considered together. People ex rel. Darr v. Alton Railroad Co., 380 Ill. 380, 43 N.E.2d 964. In the instant case the objector had paid 75 per cent of all taxes under protest, and obtained the collector's receipts. The order of the court so finds.

The sole question to be decided by this court is: Shall a taxpayer, who has actually complied with section 194 of the statute, by the payment of his taxes under protest and securing proper receipts therefor, be entirely precluded from amending his objections to show such facts because a copy of his receipt did not...