People ex rel. Bankson v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 10310.,10310.
• Citation: 271 Ill. 226,110 N.E. 843
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. BANKSON, County Collector, v. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.

271 Ill. 226

110 N.E. 843

PEOPLE ex rel. BANKSON, County Collector,

v.CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.

No. 10310.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1915.

Appeal from Pulaski County Court; Fred Hood, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, on relation of Mannon Bankson, County Collector, against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for taxes against it, defendant appeals. Reversed.P. J. Kolb, of Mt. Carmel, and Wall & Martin, of Mound City (L. J. Hackney and Frank L. Littleton, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.

C. S. Miller, of Mound City, for appellee.

FARMER, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Pulaski county against the property of appellant for delinquent road and bridge taxes for the year 1914 in districts Nos. 4, 6, and 11, in said county.

[1] One objection is that the certificates of levy did not show a meeting of the commissioners between the first Tuesdays in August and September and did not show any meeting of the commissioners on the first Tuesday in September, as required by sections 50 and 56 of the Road and Bridge Law. We have held this is not required to be shown by the certificates of levy. People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (No. 10301) 110 N. E. 841.

[2] Another objection is that the commissioners in each of said towns did not hold a meeting between the first Tuesdays in August and September to determine the tax rate and did not hold a meeting on the first Tuesday in September to certify the amount required to be raised by taxation. This objection is abandoned by appellant as to road districts Nos. 4 and 11, and it is conceded the record of the meetings of the commissioners is sufficient as to them. The clerk in road district No. 6 testified there was no record of any meeting of the commissioners in August; that he did not keep any record of the meeting on the first Tuesday in September in the record book, but had it on a slip of paper he had written since he had been subpoenaed as a witness in the case. Over objections of appellant he was permitted to testify, on cross-examination, that the commissioners met in August to determine the rate of tax required for road and bridge purposes in the district, and that they met again on the first Tuesday in September. This testimony was incompetent and should not have been admitted. The commissioners were required to keep a record of the proceedings (People v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Ry. Co. [No. 10042] 110 N. E. 723), and their official acts must be proved by the record and not by oral testimony (People v. Madison County, 125 Ill. 334, 17 N. E. 802;Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Ry. Co. v. People, 205 Ill. 538, 69 N. E. 40). If the commissioners did, in fact, meet as required by law, the record could have been amended so as to show the facts; but it is not competent to show the holding of these meetings by oral testimony. Appellant's objections should have been sustained to the road and bridge tax in road district No. 6.

It is further objected that the certificates of levy of the commissioners of highways were not filed with the county board on the first Tuesday in September. This is not required. The certificate of the amount of tax necessary to be raised is required to be made on the first Tuesday in September, but it is not required to be filed on that day. It is sufficient if filed in time for the action of the board at its September meeting. People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (No. 10313) 110 N. E. 845.

[6] It was stipulated on the hearing that pages 59 to 66, inclusive, of county...