Kilgore v. the People
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8247,76 Ill. 548 |
| Parties | JAMES D. KILGOREv.THE PEOPLE, for the use, etc. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Ford county.
Mr. JOHN R. KINNEAR, for the appellant.
Mr. JAS. K. EDSALL, Attorney General, and Mr. A. SAMPLE, for the People.
This was an action of debt, in the Ford circuit court, on the official bond of James D. Kilgore, as collector of the revenue of that county.
The pleas were, non est factum and performance of the condition of the bond. By consent, the issues were tried by the court, and a finding and judgment for the plaintiff.
The breach alleged was, as collector defendant had received the sum of five thousand dollars, which he had not paid over to the county treasury, nor any part thereof. In the second count, that defendant had converted and disposed of the money collected for his own use, and refused and neglected to surrender the same to his successor, and that his office became vacant on the 12th of August, 1874, and John B. Shaw succeeded him in office on the 19th of September, 1874.
Appellant, on this appeal, makes the point that the offices of treasurer and collector are distinct, and his right to retain the statutory fees and commissions of collector is perfect, notwithstanding his salary as treasurer may have been fixed by the board of supervisors.
This is really the only important question in the case. Are there two distinct offices: that of the treasurer and that of the collector? If two, then the claim of appellant must be allowed; if not, then he is responsible, for the facts are not controverted.
It is quite a pertinent question at the threshold of this investigation, if the office of collector is an office distinct and separate from all others, and the collector such an officer, when and under what provision of law was he elected? Appellant claiming the office of collector to be separate and distinct from the office of treasurer, to which he has been elected, it is incumbent on him to show when, where and how he was elected to such office. By the constitution and laws of this State the election or appointment of all officers is provided for, and an express inhibition on the General Assembly to elect or appoint to office outside of their own body.
We look in vain to the constitution for a provision as to the election of a collector of a county, and the statute is equally silent. Had the election or appointment of such an officer been designed, surely there would have been some provision made to that end in the constitution or statutes.
The constitution, section 8, article 10, has this provision: “In each county there shall be elected the following county officers: county judge, sheriff, county clerk, clerk of the circuit court, * * * treasurer, surveyor and coroner.” A collector is not named in the constitution as an officer to be elected in counties or appointed therein, nor is he known to the law as an officer per se. This is shown by reference to section 144 of the revenue law, where it is declared that the treasurers of counties under township organization, and the sheriffs of counties not under such organization, shall be ex officio collectors of their respective counties; that is to say, the revenues of the county in the shape of taxes shall be collected by the treasurer of the county elected by the people of the county.
This is a duty the legislature had a right to impose upon those officers, and to require of them additional bonds for the performance of such additional duties. No office was created thereby, but a legislative order that all county treasurers in certain counties shall, by virtue of their office as treasurer, collect the revenue of the county. Should one of these treasurers fail or refuse to give bond for the faithful performance of the duty of collecting, the office may be declared vacated What office? The office of treasurer, there being no other.
This question, in a somewhat different shape, came before this court in 1863, in Wood et al. v. Cook, 31 Ill. 271. In that case it was contended by the plaintiff in error, that the office of sheriff and collector were two distinct and separate offices, notwithstanding the act of the legislature provided that the sheriff of the county should be ex officio collector of taxes.
In the examination we then gave the subject, the conclusion was reached there was but one office--that of sheriff; and his deputy was authorized to collect and receipt for taxes. It was held the office of collector was gone--the duties he was required by the old law to perform devolving upon the sheriff. By the old law, from 1839 to 1845, these offices were separate and distinct, but by the act of 1845 it was declared the sheriff should be ex officio collector.
Appellant was the county treasurer, duly elected and qualified, executing his bond as such, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFarlane v. Hotz
...with their necessary clerk and office expense and clerk hire, in a lump sum rather than in separate amounts for each item. Kilgore v. People, 76 Ill. 548;Brissenden v. County of Clay, 161 Ill. 216, 43 N.E. 977;People ex rel. McWard v. Wabash R. Co., 395 Ill. 243, 70 N.E.2d 36. The authority......
-
Hindman v. the Vill. of Aledo.
...the use of the city of Morrison the amount of the road and bridge tax collected upon property lying within its limits. See also Kilgour v. The People, 76 Ill. 548; The County of Clinton v. Schuster, supra. And the remedy by either of these forms of action would seem to be as certain, ample ......
-
Peabody v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty.
...Even the imposition of additional duties upon an officer during his term will not justify an increase of salary during his term. Kilgore v. People, 76 Ill. 548;Broadwell v. People, 76 Ill. 554;Daggett v. Ford County, 99 Ill. 334;Foote v. Lake County, 69 N. E. 47, 206 Ill. 185;Parker v. Coun......
-
Lowden v. Washita Cnty. Excise Bd.
...v. Grow, 15 Cal. 118, 123; People v. Wemple, 115 N. Y. 302, 22 N. E. 272, 274; State ex rel. McGrath v. Holladay, 67 Mo. 64; Kilgore v. People, 76 Ill. 548, 552; and other cases cited under the title of "Compensation" in 15 C.J.S., and Words & Phrases, vol. 2. In view of this, we feel that ......