Fox v. Turtle
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 55 Ill. 377,1870 WL 6434 |
| Parties | AMBROSE FOXv.WILLIAM TURTLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment, commenced by Turtle against Fox, to recover lot 16, in block 1, in Carpenter's addition to the city of Chicago. The plaintiff claimed title through two tax deeds to said premises--one dated July 19, 1860, made and executed by John Gray, sheriff of Cook county, to Allen C. Lewis, and the other dated October 21, 1861, made and executed by the city of Chicago to the said Lewis, and the question is, as to the validity of the tax title. The appellant objects to the title derived through the deed from the sheriff, that the collector's report of delinquent lands failed to show what portion of the taxes he had been unable to collect, for the non-payment of which the premises were sold, were State, and what portion were county taxes, the report giving simply the total amount of taxes. The question arising under the city tax title is presented in the opinion of the court.
Messrs. WALKER & DEXTER, for the appellant.
Messrs. STORY & KING and Mr. EDWARD ROBY, for the appellee.
This was an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiff claimed under two sales for non-payment of taxes, one by the sheriff of Cook county for non-payment of State and county taxes for the year 1857; the other by the collector of the city of Chicago for non-payment of taxes due the city for the year 1858. The title claimed under the sheriff's sale is open to the same objection that was held fatal in the case of Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108, and it is unnecessary to consider the other objections.
The city tax title is defective in this respect: The certificate that the collector's notice of his intended application for judgment had been published for the time required by the statute, by means of which the court acquired its jurisdiction, is signed, “John Wentworth, publisher, by Reed.” The statute requires the certificate of publication to be signed by the publisher or printer. This certificate does not purport to be given by the publisher, but by another person who uses his name, and his authority to do so does not appear. While, in case a newspaper were published by a firm or by a corporation, we might accept the certificate of one of the partners, or of an officer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Dooley
...193; 67 Miss. 543; 32 Ga. 653-655; 35 Ill. 315; 16 Barb. 319, 322; 74 Ill. 274; 27 Cal. 295-298; 37 Mich. 143; 28 F. 514; 60 Ill. 338; 55 Ill. 377; 8 Minn. 381; 44 1041; 16 S.W. 197; 51 Ark. 34; 48 Ark. 238; 10 F. 891; 33 Ark. 450; 27 Ark. 110; 33 Ark. 740; 30 Ark. 723; Newman's Pl. & Pr. 5......
-
Payson v. People ex rel. Parsons
...court acted was insufficient, that the finding of the court in favor of its jurisdiction was conclusive. Goudy v. Hall, 30 Ill. 109;Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377; Fortman v. Ruggles, supra. The draninage district seeking to levy a tax on appellant's land, and deriving its power to do so from a......
-
Noble v. Amoretti
...v. Haithcock, 80 Ala. 565; Tallman v. White, 2 N. Y., 70; Striker v. Kelley, 2 Den., 323; Belden v. State, 46 Tex. 103; Fox. v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377; Pickett Hartsock, 13 Ill. 279; Morgan v. Camp, 16 Ill. 176; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 109; Company v. Greely, 11 Minn. 322; Hough v. Hastings......
-
Hertig v. People ex rel. Kochersperger
...S. Weighley was a proper person to make it, and that it should have been sealed with the corporate seal of the ‘Mail.’ The case of Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377, relied upon by appellant, is not in point. Here the certificate was signed, ‘John Wentworth, Publisher, by Reed;’ and it did not app......