Faithorn v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 22 December 1909 |
| Citation | 242 Ill. 508,90 N.E. 303 |
| Parties | FAITHORN v. THOMPSON, County Collector. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Albert C. Barnes, Judge.
Bill by John N. Faithorn, receiver, against John R. Thompson, County Collector. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.Julius A. Johnson, Enoch A. Price, and Jesse B. Barton, for appellant.
John C. Williams, Charles E. Anthony, and James S. Handy, for appellee.
This is a bill filed in the superior court of Cook county on July 9, 1909, by the receiver of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, praying that the county treasurer be restrained from selling for unpaid sanitary district taxes certain property of the said company. After issues joined a hearing was had, and a decree entered dismissing the bill for want of equity. From that decree this appeal has been prosecuted.
The property on which this tax was levied is situated in that part of the Sanitary District of Chicago which was annexed to the district under the provisions of an act entitled‘An act in relation to the Sanitary District of Chicago,’ etc., approved May 14, 1903, in force July 1, 1903 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1908, p. 384, c. 24, §§ 369e-369m). It is contended that said act is in contravention of sections 9 and 10 of article 9 and sections 13 and 22 of article 4 of the Constitution. This act was held constitutional in City of Chicago v. Town of Cicero, 210 Ill. 290, 295, 71 N. E. 356, 358. While all of the provisions of the Constitution here invoked by appellant were not discussed by this court in that case, yet the reasoning of the opinion, in effect, disposes of all the questions raised by appellant in this case. The chief arguments advanced here were pressed upon the attention of the court in that case. The main contention of appellant in this case is that the act is unconstitutional because the Legislature could not provide for the annexation of the additional territory to the Sanitary District without a vote of the people. In discussing that question in the former case, after a review of many of the authorities cited by the appellant in this case, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pasquotank Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Cahoon
...District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S. W. 12; Mudd v. St. Francis Drainage District, 117 Ark. 30, 173 S. W. 825; Faithorn v. Thompson, 242 Ill. 508, 90 N. E. 303." Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we can find no authority under the decisions of this state construing the drain......
-
Pasquotank Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Cahoon
... ... Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12; ... Mudd v. St. Francis Drainage District, 117 Ark. 30, ... 173 S.W. 825; Faithorn v. Thompson, 242 Ill. 508, 90 N.E ... Under ... the facts and circumstances of this case, we can find no ... authority under ... ...
- People v. Economac
-
Mortell v. Clark
...held constitutional by this court in the cases of City of Chicago v. Town of Cicero, 210 Ill. 290, 71 N. E. 356, and Faithorn v. Thompson, 242 Ill. 508, 90 N. E. 303, and its constitutionality was assumed in Judge v. Bergman, supra. The only new question as to its constitutionality raised h......