Edward M. West v. People of State

• Decision Date: 28 February 1879
• Citation: 3 Ill.App. 377,3 Bradw. 377
• Parties: EDWARD M. WEST ET AL.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

3 Ill.App. 377

3 Bradw. 377

EDWARD M. WEST ET AL.

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

February Term, 1879.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. KROME & HADLEY, for appellants; contending that the appeal should have been to the Appellate Court, cited Rev. Stat. 1877, Chap. 37, §§ 122, 123.

The title to the lands was not in appellants at the time of the assessment. The title derived by sale under execution was void, because the premises were exempt as a homestead: Green v. Marks, 25 Ill. 221; Stevenson v. Marony, 29 Ill. 532; Fishback v. Lane, 36 Ill. 437; Wiggins v. Chance, 54 Ill. 175.

Appellants were liable personally only for taxes levied after they became owners of the land: Rev. Stat. Chap. 120, § 59; Atlantic R. R. Co. v. Cleins, 2 Dillon, 175; County Com'rs v. Claggett, 31 Mo. 210; Cooley on Taxation, 303.

No report of the collector and notice of application for judgment were made, and the county court had no jurisdiction: Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Picket v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 282; Morgan v. Camp, 16 Ill. 175; Chiniquy v. The People, 78 Ill. 570.

Mr. CYRUS L. COOK and Messrs. WISE & DAVIS, for appellee.

WALL, J.

This was an action of debt, commenced by the appellees against the appellants, in the County Court of Madison county, to the August term, 1878, to recover the amount due upon certain real estate alleged to have been forfeited to the State. In the county court judgment was rendered against the appellants for $88.88, from which an appeal was taken by the appellees to the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court the appellants moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was by the court overruled, and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment in favor of the appellees for $632.46. The case is brought here by appeal, and various errors are assigned, only one of which we propose now to consider. Was the appeal properly taken to the Circuit Court? Chapter 37, section 122, Rev. Stat. provides that “appeals may be taken from the final orders, judgments and decrees of the county courts to the circuit courts of their respective counties in all matters, except as provided in the following section, upon appellant giving bond, etc., except as otherwise provided by law. Upon such appeal the case shall be tried de novo.” The following section, 123, provides that “appeals and writs of error may be be taken and prosecuted from the final orders, judgments and decrees of the County Court to the Supreme Court, or Appellate Court, should such a court be established by law, in proceedings for the sale of lands for taxes and special assessments; and in all common law and attachment cases, and cases of forcible detainer and forcible entry and detainer.”

It is urged that the term common law cases, as here used, refers not to the form of action, but to the nature and origin of the right. If the right or cause of action is statutory, and was unknown at common law, then it is said the term does not apply. We think this is not the true construction. If there is any doubt or ambiguity as to the meaning of the words, it is proper to adopt that construction which gives to the language the significance ordinarily attached to it. When a statute is remedial, such a construction should obtain as will promote the...