English v. People of State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1880 |
| Citation | 96 Ill. 566,1880 WL 10143 |
| Parties | JOSEPH G. ENGLISHv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the County Court of Will County.
Mr. STEPHEN R. MOORE, for the plaintiff in error:
The statute, (section 191 of the Revenue law,) requires the county judge to sign the order for judgment against delinquent lands. No reason is necessary to be given for this requirement. It is sufficient that it is so required. Reed v. Morton, 9 Mo. 379; Mayhew v. Davis, 4 McLean, 213; Hinman v. Pope, 1 Gilm. 141; Blackwell's Tax Titles, 58.
The notice of the application for judgment does not give the year for which the taxes are due. The notice is a jurisdictional fact and indispensable. Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377; Waller v. Chicago, 53 Id. 88; Goodrich v. Minonk, 62 Id. 121; Charles v. Waugh, 35 Id. 315; McVeagh v. Neuhaus et al. 49 Id. 330; Fortman et al. v. Ruggles et al. 58 Id. 208.
The cases of Hale v. The People, 87 Ill. 72, and The People v. Sherman, 83 Id. 164, are not in point. In these cases it does not appear the jurisdictional objection was made in the court below. This court has not yet held that when a defendant appears for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, by the act of objecting he confers jurisdiction. To confer jurisdiction by objecting to jurisdiction on the part of the contestant is a contradiction of terms. It is an unthinkable proposition. It would defeat the very purpose of the objection. It is an absurdity, as I think. Blackwell, p. 251; Cooley on Taxation, pp. 290, 291.
The principles of equality and uniformity are indispensable to all legal taxation, general or local. Section 10, Art. 9, Const.; Rev. Stat. chap. 126, sec. 4. When property is assessed higher than it will bring at a fair voluntary sale, and higher than adjoining property of equal value, then the law will presume it was done with a fraudulent intent.
Mr. JAS. R. FLANDERS, and Mr. E. MEERS, for the defendant in error:
By entering his full appearance, the plaintiff in error obviated or waived any defect in the notice. Hale v. The People, 87 Ill. 72; The People v. Sherman, 83 Id. 165.
On application for judgment against delinquent lands the court has no power to hear evidence and reduce the assessment for over valuation. The remedy for over valuation must be sought under section 86 or 97 of the Revenue law. The People v. Big Muddy Iron Co. 89 Ill. 116; Buck v. The People, 78 Id. 560; Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Pollock et al. 75 Id. 292.
This is a writ of error to the county court of Will county, on a judgment for delinquent taxes.
Six grounds of error are insisted upon in the printed argument filed by counsel for plaintiff in error. They will be noticed in the order of their presentation by counsel.
1st. It is objected the judgment is not signed by the county judge.
This is a misapprehension. The record shows that the judgment is signed by the county judge. The fact that an order allowing an appeal to this court intervenes between the order of sale and the signature of the judge in nowise affects the sufficiency of the judgment. The signature of the judge is most appropriately after and not before that order.
2d. The second and third grounds relate to the sufficiency of the publication to give the court jurisdiction.
The plaintiff entered his full appearance in the county court, and contested the tax upon its merits, as well as upon technical grounds. This, we have held, waives any and all questions of the sufficiency of notice. Hale v. The People, 87 Ill. 72; The People v. Sherman, 83 Id. 165.
3d. The fourth ground is, that the court improperly excluded evidence of the contestant that the land was assessed higher than it would sell for, etc.
In this there was clearly no error. The 86th section of the Revenue law (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 871,) afforded the plaintiff in error ample and the only remedy for the correction of an excessive valuation upon his property, unless it was fraudulently assessed too high, which was not proposed to be proved. Adsit v. Lieb, 76 Ill. 198; The People v. Big Muddy Iron Co. 89 Id. 116. 4th. The fifth ground is: In the ordinance of the city of Joliet, termed the “Annual appropriation bill,” upon and by virtue of which the city taxes are levied, there occurs this item: “Interest on rolling mill bonds, and principal on 10 bonds, $15,300.” This item, it is insisted, being for the benefit of a purely private manufacturing corporation, has no authority of law to sustain it.
To this the counsel for the People reply that the record fails to show that this levy is of the character objected.
It devolves upon the People to show that the tax which is sought to be collected has the sanction of law to support it.
Says Dillon, in his work on Municipal Corporations, (1st ed. § 605): “It is a principle universally declared and admitted, that municipal corporations can levy no taxes, general or special, upon the inhabitants on their property, unless the power be plainly and unmistakably conferred.”
“It is as true of the political divisions of the State as it is of the State at large, that legislative authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cyers Woolen Co. v. Town of Gilsum
...692, 42 N. W. 154; Michigan Sugar Co. v. Auditor General, 124 Mich. 674, 83 N. W. 625, 56 L. R. A. 329, 83 Am. St. Rep. 354; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Mather v. Ottawa, 114 Ill. 659, 3 N. E. 216; Oxnard Beet Sugar Co. v. State, 73 Neb. 57, 102 N. W. 80, 105 N. W. 716; National Bank v.......
-
Briggs v. City of Raleigh
... ... 1927) dedicated and set apart 200 acres of the state's ... land, situate within five miles of the state capitol, the ... particular acreage to be ... 1, § 126); that ... is, the objects to be attained must affect the people as a ... community and not merely as individuals (Cooley's Const ... Limit. 531) ... with its means. Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, ... 1 S.Ct. 442, 27 L.Ed. 238; English v. People, 96 ... Ill. 566; Nat. Bank v. Iola, 9 Kan. 689 ... It ... follows, ... ...
-
Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Village of Evart
...64 N.Y. 91; In re Application of Eureka Basin Warehouse & Mfg. Co., 96 N.Y. 42; Bissell v. City of Kankakee, 64 Ill. 249; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Co. v. Smith, 23 Kan. 745.' This is an instructive case. In Scotland County Court v. U.S., 140 U.S. 41, 11 Sup.Ct. 697, the court held th......
-
Spring Valley Coal Co. v. People
... ... Spencer v. People, 68 Ill. 510;People v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 89 Ill. 116;English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Keokuk & H. Bridge Co. v. People, supra.The legislature has committed the subject of the review of assessments in the matter of valuation in the first instance to the town board of review, and thereafter, in succession, to the board of supervisors of the county and the state board of equalization. Even if we should assume that the values as fixed by the assessor of the town of Hall were fraudulently made by him, the ... ...