Haggard v. Fay

• Citation: 255 Ill. 85,99 N.E. 365
• Parties: HAGGARD et al. v. FAY, County Clerk, et al.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1912
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

255 Ill. 85

99 N.E. 365

HAGGARD et al.

v.FAY, County Clerk, et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 21, 1912.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Piatt County; W. G. Cochran, Judge.

Bill by Thomas C. Haggard and others against Harvey Fay, County Clerk, and others. From a decree dissolving an injunction and dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Herrick & Herrick, of Farmer City, for appellants.

W. A. Doss, C. S. Reed, C. W. Firke, of Mansfield, and Elim J. Hawbaker, of Monticello, for appellees.

CARTER, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Piatt county dissolving an injunction and dismissing a bill for want of equity. The injunction restrained the county clerk from extending a certain tax levied for the purpose of constructing a town hall in the town of Blue Ridge, in said county. The decree ordered that an appeal should have the effect of continuing said injunction in force.

March 14, 1911, the town clerk of said town posted notices for the annual town meeting, to be held April 4th, in six of the most public places in said town, and also publisheda notice of said meeting in a newspaper in Mansfield, in said town. March 24th a petition signed by 25 electors was filed with the town clerk, requesting that he give notice that the question of buying land and building a town hall for said town would be brought up at the annual town meeting. The town clerk after the filing of said petition and more than 10 days before the annual town meeting, inserted in three of the notices already posted, a statement with reference to building the town hall, so that those notices, after the insertion, read as follows: ‘Annual Town Meeting. Notice is hereby given to the citizens, legal voters of the town of Blue Ridge, in the county of Piatt and state of Illinois, that the annual town meeting for said town will be held at the town clerk's office in Mansfield, Ill., for district No. 1, and that the miscellaneous business will be transacted at the same place at the hour of 2 p. m., and at F. D. Gillispie's grain office in Harris, Ill., for district No. 2, they will vote for officers in said town on Tuesday, the 4th day of April next, being the first Tuesday in said month, for the following purposes, viz.: First, to choose a moderator to preside at said meeting; second, to elect one commissioner of highways; third, to vote on the proposition, ‘Shall the road and property tax be paid in money?’ Notice is hereby given that the question of purchasing land and building a town hall will be brought before such annual meeting, and to act upon any additional subjects which may, in pursuance of law, come before said meeting when convened. Polls open at seven o'clock a. m., and must close at five o'clock p. m. Given under my hand at Mansfield this 14th day of March A. D. 1911. F. A. Rock, Town Clerk.' The date of these notices was not changed and no other change was made except the amendment, which is shown by the italicized words. From this record it must be assumed that the other three posted notices remained unchanged; that the town clerk published the notice, as so changed, March 24th, in the same newspaper as before; that the town meeting for the transaction of miscellaneous business was held at the town clerk's office in Mansfield, and was attended by nearly 200 electors; that a resolutionwas adopted to build a town hall for said town of Blue Ridge to cost not to exceed $8,000, and for a tax to be levied for that purpose; that there were about 400 qualified voters in the town; and that a number of them voted in election district No. 2 at Harris, some five miles distant from Mansfield. Appellants claim that the polls at Harris were not closed while the miscellaneous business was being transacted at Mansfield, and that thereby a number of voters were deprived of their vote on the proposition in question.

The first matter to be considered is whether the notice given by the town clerk that the town hall question would be brought up at the meeting was so deficient as to render the tax proposed to be extended for that purpose invalid.

[1] The contention of appellees that, as the time and place of holding the annual town meeting was fixed by law, no notice was necessary on the question of building a town hall cannot be sustained. The authorities cited to support this contention apply only when the time and place of holding an election, and the officers or subjects to be voted on, are all fixed by law, and do not control when the statute requires, as it does here, that the notice of the election must specify the particular business to be done. The rule is general that, where the statute requires the business to be stated in the notice of a town meeting, such notice is essential. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (5th Ed.) § 509.

[2] A vote is void if the conditions precedent to the taking of it are not observed. 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 566. See, also, Stephens v. People, 89 Ill. 337;Simons v. People, 119 Ill. 617, 9 N. E. 220;Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. People, 205 Ill. 582, 69 N. E. 89. This court has held that in order to invest an annual town meeting with jurisdiction to adopt the proposition to pay the district labor and property road tax in labor it was essential that the petition prescribed in the statute be followed, and that the statutory notice thereof be given by the town clerk, otherwise the tax attempted to be levied at the town meeting for that purpose would be void. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. People, 193 Ill. 539, 61 N. E. 1068. It has also been held that it is essential to the existence of the power to levy taxes to build...