Chambers v. People Ex Rel. H. H. Fuller
| Decision Date | 30 March 1885 |
| Citation | 113 Ill. 509 |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. CHAMBERSv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. H. H. Fuller, Collector. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Coles county; the Hon. CHARLES BENNETT, Judge, presiding.
At the May term, 1883, of the county court of Coles county, the collector of said county made application for judgment against lots 1, 16, 17 and 18, in block 1, original town of Charleston, for the delinquent taxes for the years 1871 to 1881, inclusive, the current taxes for the year 1882 having been paid, which application was allowed. The following is a copy of the transcript of the delinquent list, and the judgment entered thereon:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ORIGINAL TOWN OF CHARLESTON. ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Back tax, ¦ ¦ ¦Total carried¦Am't ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Back tax, ¦interest and ¦ ¦Interest ¦over as ¦brought ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦In whose ¦ ¦ ¦State equalized ¦interest and ¦costs forfeited¦Total ¦after May¦amounts for ¦over for¦ ¦Amount of ¦ ¦
¦name ¦Lot..............¦Block............¦valuation.......¦costs forfeited ¦subsequent to ¦tax.........¦1, (sec. ¦which ¦which ¦Costs............¦judgment...........¦Remarks.........¦
¦assessed.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦prior to July 1,¦July 1, ¦ ¦177).....¦judgment is ¦judgment¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1879............¦1879..... ¦ ¦ ¦asked........¦is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asked...¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+------------+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------¦
¦H. H. ¦1 ¦1 ¦$125 00 ¦1871-1879--$123 ¦1879-80-81--$43¦$166 92 ¦$1 67 ¦$168 59 ¦$168 59 ¦23 ¦$148 79 ¦Appealed ¦
¦Davidson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦85 ¦07 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+------------+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------¦
¦H. H. ¦16 ¦1 ¦83 00 ¦1871-1879-- 96 ¦1879-80-81-- 28¦125 35 ¦1 25 ¦126 60 ¦126 60 ¦23 ¦106 87 ¦Appealed ¦
¦Davidson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦36 ¦99 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+------------+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------¦
¦same ¦17 ¦1 ¦664 00 ¦1871-1879-- 787 ¦1879-80-81--228¦1016 36 ¦10 16 ¦1026 52 ¦1026 52 ¦23 ¦871 54 ¦Appealed ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦49 ¦87 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+------------+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------¦
¦same ¦18 ¦1 ¦105 00 ¦1871-1879-- 150 ¦1879-80-81-- 50¦200 79 ¦2 01 ¦202 80 ¦202 80 ¦23 ¦172 92 ¦Appealed ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦40 ¦39 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The application for judgment was resisted by W. M. Chambers, who had recently purchased the property at a partition sale. There were altogether seventeen written objections interposed by him, none of which were deemed sufficient, and judgments were thereupon entered against the said lots for the respective amounts above shown. By his appeal, Chambers brings the case to this court for review.
For the purpose of the present appeal it is stipulated that lots 1, 16, 17 and 18, block 1, original town of Charleston, Coles county, Illinois, were forfeited to the State of Illinois, at the tax sale of 1872, for non-payment of the said taxes due thereon for the year 1871; that the said lots were in like manner forfeited each succeeding year, up to and including the year 1882, for the non-payment of taxes, interest and costs of the year 1871 and all the succeeding years, up to the time of each forfeiture. It was also stipulated that the taxes which were extended against each of the said lots for each of the said years, respectively, were as follows:
+-----------------------------------+
¦ ¦Lot 1.¦Lot 16.¦Lot 17.¦Lot 18.¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1871¦$7 16 ¦$6 44 ¦$51 57 ¦$9 31 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1872¦7 43 ¦6 70 ¦53 50 ¦9 67 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1873¦8 96 ¦6 13 ¦47 78 ¦8 66 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1874¦9 47 ¦6 33 ¦50 42 ¦9 47 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1875¦7 18 ¦5 37 ¦51 01 ¦8 93 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1876¦9 71 ¦7 07 ¦66 52 ¦12 50 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1877¦8 86 ¦5 92 ¦47 17 ¦10 35 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1878¦10 62 ¦7 05 ¦56 43 ¦12 36 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1879¦8 00 ¦5 32 ¦42 56 ¦9 31 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1880¦8 76 ¦5 85 ¦46 72 ¦10 25 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1881¦9 30 ¦6 21 ¦49 49 ¦10 88 ¦
+-----------------------------------+
That the amounts for which each of said lots were forfeited, for each of said years, were as follows:
+-----------------------------------+
¦ ¦Lot 1.¦Lot 16.¦Lot 17.¦Lot 18.¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1872¦$7 66 ¦$6 94 ¦$52 07 ¦$9 81 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1873¦15 81 ¦14 84 ¦111 28 ¦20 96 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1874¦26 86 ¦22 96 ¦170 69 ¦32 22 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1875¦39 53 ¦32 10 ¦238 69 ¦56 10 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1876¦51 17 ¦41 19 ¦291 60 ¦71 15 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1877¦66 51 ¦52 89 ¦387 79 ¦91 25 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1878¦82 43 ¦64 60 ¦473 24 ¦103 05 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1879¦101 35¦78 16 ¦578 15 ¦125 77 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1880¦120 74¦92 27 ¦685 37 ¦149 20 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1881¦124 13¦94 58 ¦765 72 ¦149 76 ¦
+----+------+-------+-------+-------¦
¦1882¦149 03¦112 41 ¦908 50 ¦179 32 ¦
+-----------------------------------+
That the costs against each of said lots, in 1872, were fifty cents, and in each subsequent year were fifty-one cents, and those amounts were added each year, and included in the amount for which each lot was forfeited, so that each forfeiture included the costs of all preceding years, as well as of the year in which the forfeiture occurred; that each of the amounts contained in the above table includes the amount of all costs which had accumulated against each lot, respectively, from 1872 up to the time of the forfeiture, which amount was, in the case of each lot, as follows: 1872, fifty cents; 1873, $1.01; 1874, $1.52; 1875, $2.03; 1876, $2.54; 1877, $3.05; 1878, $3.56; 1879, $4.07; 1880, $4.58; 1881, $5.09; 1882, $5.60; that the residue of the amount of the forfeiture of each lot for each year, was tax and interest, or penalty; that the tax judgment, sale, redemption and forfeiture record of 1881 shows as follows, in regard to the back taxes on said lots, viz:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦Back tax, interest and costs ¦Back tax, interest and costs ¦
¦ ¦forfeited prior to July 1, 1879. ¦forfeited subsequent to July 1, 1879.¦
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------¦
¦Lot¦1871-2-3-4-5-6-7 and 1878--¦$102 35¦1879-- ¦$11 29 ¦
¦1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+---------------------------+-------+------------------+------------------¦
¦Lot¦1871-2-3-4-5-6-7 and 1878--¦79 63 ¦1879-- ¦7 66 ¦
¦16 ¦ ¦ ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mich. Trust Co. v. City of Grand Rapids
...state to provide for the levy and collection of taxes is unlimited, except as restricted by the state and federal Constitutions. Chambers v. People, 113 Ill. 509. The obligation of the citizen to pay taxes is purely a statutory creation, and taxes can be levied, assessed, and collected only......
-
Leigh v. Green
... ... writ of error issued by Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice, ... July 22, 1902. The federal question involved is a ... Castile, 42 Ark. 77; Chambers v. People, 113 ... Ill. 509); levy and sale by the tax-collector ... ...
-
People v. Sears
...state to provide for the levy and collection of taxes is unlimited, except as restricted by the state and federal Constitutions. Chambers v. People, 113 Ill. 509. The obligation of the citizen to pay taxes is purely a statutory creation, and taxes can be levied, assessed, and collected only......
-
Town of Manchester v. People ex rel. Grady
...to the amendment proposed to be accomplished by the amendatory act. People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388;Timm v. Harrison, 109 Ill. 593;Chambers v. People, 113 Ill. 509. The act entitled ‘An act in regard to the assessment and collection of municipal taxes,’ in force July 1, 1877, did not purport ......