Markley v. People ex rel. Kochersperger
| Decision Date | 14 February 1898 |
| Citation | 49 N.E. 502,171 Ill. 260 |
| Parties | MARKLEY v. PEOPLE ex rel. KOCHERSPERGER, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook county court; O. N. Carter, Judge.
Application by the people of the state of Illinois, on the relation of D. H. Kochersperger, county collector of Cook county, for judgment on account of a delinquent installment of a special assessment levied by the city of Chicago for the improvement of a street.
From an order overruling his objections to the application, and a judgment entered as prayed,Rich & Stone and Randall W. Burns, for appellant.
Charles S. Thornton, Corp. Counsel, and John A. May, for appellee.
In the county court of Cook county the county collector made application for judgment on account of the delinquent fifth installment of a special assessment levied by the city of Chicago for the improvement of Prairie avenue. The appellant appeared, and filed an objection, which sets forth that when application was made in the previous year to obtain a tax judgment for the delinquent fourth installment of the same assessment, the county court refused judgment because of the invalidity of the ordinance in the special assessment proceeding. This former finding in favor of the appellant, it is claimed, is res judicata. To sustain his objection he offered in evidence the petition, assessment roll, judgment of confirmation, and the objections and all other papers and files belonging to the special assessment proceeding. He next offered the judgment of the county court refusing judgment on said former installment, and also the objections filed by him therein, and showed by a witness who was present at that trial that the court refused judgment on account of the invalidity of the ordinance. All of this evidence was admitted, but, after hearing it, the court found against the appellant.
This record presents the question of whether an order of the county court refusing judgment for one installment of a special assessment is conclusive on an application for a judgment for a subsequent installment of the same assessment on the same piece of property, where the finding of the court in the first proceeding was that the ordinance on which the assessment was based was invalid. In the light of a well-settled rule, this question must be answered in the affirmative. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
... ... 877, 19 S.Ct. 580; Chicago ... Theological Seminary v. People, 189 Ill. 439, 59 N.E. 980 ... Where ... the mandate ... N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Carson, 169 Ill. 247, 48 N.E. 402; ... Markley v. People, 171 Ill. 260, 63 Am. St. Rep ... 234, 49 N.E. 502; Young v ... ...
-
Murphy v. Barron
... ... 138; Railway v ... Donnovan, 149 Mo. 93; State ex rel. v. Bank, ... 211 S.W. 817; Fitzgerald v. Road District, 195 S.W ... Barnum, 131 Cal. 386; Keohler v. Mfg ... Co., 146 Cal. 335; Markley v. People, 171 Ill ... 260; Reynolds v. Randel, 175 Ill. 615; Rowell ... ...
-
People v. Small
...question or questions arise (Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. National Storage Co., 260 Ill. 485, 103 N. E. 227;Markley v. People, 171 Ill. 260, 49 N. E. 502,63 Am. St. Rep. 234;Hanna v. Read, 102 Ill. 596, 40 Am. Rep. 608); but as a general rule this principle is not applicable where it is sou......
-
City of Geneseo v. Illinois Northern Utilities Co.
...Kitson v. Farwell, 132 Ill. 327, 23 N.E. 1024;Chicago Theological Seminary v. People, 189 Ill. 439, 59 N.E. 977;Markley v. People, 171 Ill. 260, 49 N.E. 502,63 Am.St.Rep. 234;Jernberg v. Mix, 199 Ill. 254, 65 N.E. 242; and People v. Wyanet Electric Light Co., 306 Ill. 377, 137 N.E. 834. In ......