Dunning v. Fitch
| Citation | 66 Ill. 51,1872 WL 8494 |
| Parties | JOSIAH D. DUNNINGv.IRA H. FITCH. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
Mr. J. D. DUNNING, pro se.
Messrs. WHEATON, SMITH & MCDOLE, for the defendant in error. Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action of trespass, brought by plaintiff in error to recover damages of defendant in error for seizing and disposing of certain articles of personal property alleged to belong to him.
Defendant in error justifies the taking on the ground that he was the collector of taxes for the town of Aurora; that taxes to the amount of $27.53 had been levied on the property of one Reifsnider for the year 1867, and the same remaining due and unpaid, on the 15th day of February, 1868, he levied on the property in controversy as the property of Reifsnider, and sold the same to make the amount of taxes and costs.
Plaintiff in error insists that $3.10 of the taxes claimed to be due from Reifsnider were illegal, having been levied to pay certain bonds which he alleges had been irregularly voted by the town of Aurora in aid of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company.
It is urged by plaintiff in error that the court should declare the donation to the railroad company illegal, and consequently the tax levied to pay the same void.
It is not perceived how that becomes a material question in this case. If the property in controversy was the property of plaintiff in error, he was entitled to it, whether the tax the collector was seeking to enforce was legally or illegally assessed. The tax was not assessed against him or his property.
In order for plaintiff in error to maintain the action of trespass, he must have been the owner of the property, or in possession, at the date it is alleged to have been seized and sold by the collector. The mere fact that he may have had a landlord's lien upon the property would not enable him to maintain the action.
There is no question that the property originally belonged to Reifsnider. It can hardly be claimed that plaintiff in error was the real owner, by purchase or otherwise. He only claims to have previously levied a landlord's warrant upon it for rent then due for premises occupied by Reifsnider. No sale had been effected under the distress proceedings so as to pass the title of Reifsnider in the property to him. Hence it can not be said that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vill. of Warren v. Wright
...v. Wright, 46 Ill. 107; Wood v. The People, Hildreth, 73 Ill. 525; Holcomb v. Smith, 79 Ill. 409; Foos v. Sabin, 84 Ill. 565; Dunning v. Fitch, 66 Ill. 51; Robinson v. Parish, 62 Ill. 130; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Higgins, 72 Ill. 517. If substantial justice has been done, the court will not di......
-
The Vill. of Warren v. Wright
... ... Wright, 46 Ill. 107; Wood v. Hildreth, 73 Ill. 525; Holcomb v. Tuttle, 79 Ill. 409; Foos v. Sabin, 84 Ill. 565; Dunning v. Fitch, 66 Ill. 51; Robinson v. Parish, 62 Ill. 130; Bishop v. Busse, 69 Ill. 403; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Higgins, 72 Ill. 517. If substant al ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Hale
... ... Lewis, 13 Ill. 642; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hays, 19 Ill. 166; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 25 Ill. 124; Keely v. O'Brien, 66 Ill. 358; Dunning v. Fitch, 66 Ill. 51; O'Brien v. Palmer, 49 Ill. 72; Bradley v. Griselman, 22 Ill. 494; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Stumps, 69 Ill. 409.Where the ... ...
-
Burt v. Blake
...actual or constructive, and that it was rightful as against the defendant. 2 Greenl. on Ev., § 613; Cannon v. Kinney, 3 Scam. 9; Dunning v. Fitch, 66 Ill. 51; Miller v. Kirby, 74 Id. 242. And this the defendant may disprove under the general issue. 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 625. Possession alone ......