Huston v. Tribbetts

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARTWRIGHT
• Citation: Huston v. Tribbetts, 171 Ill. 547, 49 N.E. 711 (Ill. 1898)
• Decision Date: 14 February 1898
• Parties: HUSTON v. TRIBBETTS.

171 Ill. 547

49 N.E. 711

HUSTON

v.TRIBBETTS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 14, 1898.

Appeal from appellate court, Third district.

Assumpsit by Albert M. Huston against Nancy Tribbetts. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was reversed by the appellate court. 69 Ill. App. 340. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. G. Jones and Beach & Hodnett, for appellant.

Blinn & Harris, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellee has a life estate in a tract of land of 160 acres, and appellant owns the remainder in fee. The land is worth $8,000, and in 1893 it was specially assessed for benefits in the construction of a ditch 40 feet wide and 7 feet deep and 5 miles long, for purposes of drainage, to the amount of $1,500, payable in five annual installments, with interest on the deferred payments. The installment due in May, 1895, was $343.19. It was not paid, and the land was sold by the county collector. In November, 1895, appellant redeemed the land by paying the amount due, $429.34, and brought this suit against appellee, the owner of the life estate, to recover the sum so paid. Appellee pleaded the general issue, and filed a special plea as to all of appellant's demand except $25, in which she set out the facts, and averred that the improvement for which the assessment was levied was a permanent one for the drainage and improvement of the land, which benefited and permanently enhanced the value of both the life estate and the remainder; that the only claim or cause of action of appellant was for contribution of such part as her life estate should pay towards discharging the said special assessment; and that her contributive share did not exceed the sum of $25. The court sustained a demurrer to this plea, to which ruling appellee excepted, and elected to stand by the plea. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court upon a written stipulation of the facts, in which it was agreed that appellee, the owner of the life estate, was of the age of 68 years, and that the drain constructed by the drainage commissioners, for which the assessment was levied, was and is a lasting and permanent improvement, permanently adding to the value of the life estate and the remainder. There were finding and judgment for appellant, which were reversed by the appellate court, and the cause was remanded to the circuit court, with directions to ascertain appellee's just proportion of the assessment and to give judgment for no more. No objection is made to the form of the judgment or the direction of the appellate court if the defense set up by the special plea was a good one, and, for the purposeof presenting that question to this court, appellant obtained a certificate of importance from the appellate court. The question thus raised is submitted to this court by the briefs of the parties, and is the only question in the case.

It is not doubted that appellee, as the owner of the life estate, must pay the annual taxes assessed against the property. They are imposed as a yearly burden for the current benefits derived from the administration of the laws, the protection of property, and the general welfare. Special assessments like this, although levied through the exercise of the taxing power, are not regarded as such ordinary taxes, but as an equivalent for benefits in the increased value of the property. Cooley, Tax'n, 416; Canal Trustees v. City of Chicago, 12 Ill. 403;McLean Co. v. City of Bloomington, 106 Ill. 209;Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Decatur, 126 Ill. 92, 18 N. E. 315. The benefits for which...