Cole v. Hall

• Decision Date: 12 May 1882
• Citation: 1882 WL 10280,103 Ill. 30
• Parties: PHILLIP COLE et al.v.JOHN HALL, Collector.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

103 Ill. 30

1882 WL 10280 (Ill.)

PHILLIP COLE et al.

v.JOHN HALL, Collector.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa May 12, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. FRANCIS GOODSPEED, Judge, presiding.

Mr. J. B. RICE, and Mr. GEO. W. W. BLAKE, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. L. W. BREWER, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The bill in this case was brought by owners of dogs, resident in the town of Serena, against the collector of taxes for the town, and is to enjoin the collection of a “license fee” of one dollar on each dog owned by complainants, respectively, and which was imposed by the proper authorities under the act of May 29, 1879, entitled “An act to indemnify the owners of sheep in cases of damage committed by dogs.” It is not questioned the statute has been complied with by the proper authorities in charging the “license fee” upon complainants for dogs owned by them, but the questions argued have exclusive reference to the constitutionality of the act under which it is sought to be imposed.

The “license fee” imposed under the provisions of the statute is in no sense a tax, and is not therefore within the operation of section 1, art. 9, of the constitution, which provides all needful revenue shall be raised by levying a tax by valuation, so that every person or corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to his, her or its property, and hence all questions as to the value of property to be taxed are of no consequence in this case. It is simply what it purports to be, a “license fee,” and is imposed under the police power, and not under the taxing power of the State. Undoubtedly “dogs” are regarded as a species of property for some purposes, but owing to their habits, which are known to be hurtful sometimes to persons and to some kinds of domestic animals, the keeping of them may be the subject of regulations provided by law. Everything hurtful to the public interest is subject to the police power of the State, and may be brought within its restraining or prohibitory influence, otherwise a public evil might exist, with no power to abate it. This ought not to be. It is known that “dogs” often impart a most fearful disease to persons injured by them, and that they are oftentimes destructive to domestic animals, such as sheep, and the State may well provide such regulations for the keeping of them as will insure safety, and may, with a view to...