Northwestern Univ. v. Hanberg

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 86 N.E. 734,237 Ill. 185
• Parties: NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY v. HANBERG, County Treasurer.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

237 Ill. 185

86 N.E. 734

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

v.HANBERG, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Charles M. Walker, Judge.

Action by the Northwestern University against John J. Hanberg, county treasurer. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 99 U. S. 309, 25 L. Ed. 387; 206 Ill. 64, 69 N. E. 75.Harry A. Lewis, William F. Struckmann, and A. C. Wenban, for appellant.

John P. Wilson and H. H. C. Miller, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

On a bill filed by the appellee the circuit court of Cook county, after a hearing on the pleadings and evidence, entered a decree perpetually enjoining the collector of Cook county from selling certain premises of the appellee under a judgment which had been rendered against them for the taxes of 1905, and from collecting, or attempting in any manner to collect, said taxes. An appeal has been taken from that decree, and the question presented is whether the premises are exempt from taxation under the fourth section of an amendment to the charter of appellee, approved February 14, 1855, which enacted ‘that all property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned by said corporation shall be forever free from taxation for any and all purposes.’ Priv. Laws 1855, p. 483. That this amendment was a contract between the state and the university whose obligation could not be impaired by subsequent legislation imposing taxes upon the property of the corporation was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Northwestern University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, 25 L. Ed. 387, reversing the decision of this court in the same case. 80 Ill. 333, 22 Am. Rep. 187. Many years later the board of assessors of Cook county assessed certain real estate of the university for taxation, and it was sought to sustain the assessment on the ground that, the real estate having been acquired prior to the passage of the amendment to the charter, the exemption therein granted did not apply to it. This contention was overruled, and it was decided that the amendment clearly exempted from taxation all the property of the corporation acquired prior to the amendment. In re Northwestern University, 206 Ill. 64, 69 N. E. 75.

The property involved in this case was acquired in March, 1905, and the position is now taken by the appellant that the amendment does not apply to any property acquired by the corporation after the amendment. Applying the well-known rule of construction in claims for exemption from taxation that a doubt is fatal to the claim and that the exemption cannot exist by implication only, but must be plainly and unmistakably granted, counsel argue that the amendment is reasonably capable of two constructions, the one restricting the exemption to the property owned by the corporation when the amendment was adopted, the other extending it to all property owned by the corporation at any time, and that the more restricted meaning must be adopted. But the rule of strict construction in favor of the state, just referred to, does not relieve the court of the duty of interpreting the exemption by the ordinary rules of construction and carrying out the intention of the Legislature if it can be ascertained. The fact that a controversy as to the construction has arisen does not determine the interpretation of the statute. The exemption exists by virtue of a contract, which is to be construed so as to accomplish the intention of the Legislature. If, after the application of all rules of interpretation for the purpose of ascertaining such intention, a well-founded doubt exists, then an ambiguity occurs, which may be settled by the application of the simple rule which resolves the doubt against the grant. But the possibility of a doubt is not sufficient. It is out of such possibilities that controversies arise, and it is the duty of courts to ascertain by judicial interpretation, not whether a doubt may be asserted, but whether any ambiguity really exists. Citizens' Bank v. Parker, 192 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. Ct. 181, 48 L. Ed. 346;Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430, 19 L. Ed. 495;Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 439, 19 L. Ed. 498.

It is fairly to be implied from the language of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Northwestern University v. People, supra, that the benefit of the exemption was extended to property acquired after the passage of the amendment. The court said (page 322 of 99 U. S.,25 L. Ed. 387): ‘It is possible if that question had been fully investigated, and all the facts necessary to decide it were before the court, it might not appear that all the lands subjected to taxation by the judgment of the...