People ex rel. Behrens v. Alton R. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 21806.,21806. |
| Citation | 352 Ill. 297,185 N.E. 576 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. BEHRENS, County Collector, v. ALTON R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of A. H. Behrens, County Collector of Macoupin County, against the Alton Railroad Company for judgment and order of sale for taxes. From a judgment and order of sale against certain property, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Macoupin County Court; Alfred A. Isaacs, Judge.
William L. Patton and Miles Gray, both of Springfield, for appellant.
Michael F. Seyfrit, State's Atty., of Carlinville, for appellee.
To the application by the county collector of Macoupin county for judgment and order of sale, for the taxes of 1931, of the railroad of the Alton Railroad Company in that county, the railroad company filed objections going to two items of the county tax levy. The levy was for $158,538. The items objected to were: ‘Pauper old claims, $19,000; county farm, salaries and supplies, $9530.’ The amount of tax objected to was $1,338.86. The objections were overruled, judgment and order of sale were entered against the property, and the railroad company appealed.
Before July 1, 1931, the obligation of the support of paupers rested upon the county. By a statute effective on July 1, 1931 (Laws 1931, p. 725 [Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, c. 107, § 15]), the act to revise the law in relation to paupers was amended so as to transfer this obligation to the townships in counties having a population less than 500,000 and under township organization, among which is Macoupin county. The tax in question was levied on September 8, 1931. It is argued that the statute under which the county was authorized to levy a tax for the maintenance of paupers having been repealed, the county board had no power to levy any tax for that purpose. And this is undoubtedly true. Andrews v. People, 75 Ill. 605;Burbank v. People, 90 Ill. 554;People v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co., 249 Ill. 175, 94 N. E. 16;People v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co., 265 Ill. 591, 107 N. E. 248. The levy for ‘pauper old claims,’ however, does not purport to be for future liabilities. The county had been liable for the support of the poor until July 1, 1931, and such liabilities, if any, as had been incurred before that date for that purpose were obligations of the county for the payment of which it was authorized to levy taxes. The burden of showing that the levy of a tax is unlawful is on the objector, and it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the levy was made for existing valid obligations of the county.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the amount and nature of the old claims and the names of the creditors do not appear. A levy of a tax is not required to specify each item of expenditure which may be made. It is required to state separately the several purposes for which taxes are to be raised and the amount for each purpose. It is not necessary to state in detail each payment which may be made for each purpose.
It is also argued that money could not be raised to pay past obligations by making a levy for ‘poor purposes,’ because the power to make a levy for such purposes had been taken away; that if there were any such claims the claimants should procure judgments, and a proper levy could then be made to pay the judgments. Obligations incurred on account of the support of the poor before July 1, if unpaid, were still obligations for the support of the poor which the county was authorized to pay without awaiting the recovery of a judgment against it. The purpose of paying them continued to be a county purpose, and a levy of taxes made for such purpose was authorized by law.
The objection to the levy for ‘county farm, salaries and supplies' was also properly overruled. No objection was made to the form that it included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Thies v. Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co.
...of the obligation to pay for their support. People v. Peoria & Eastern Railway Co., 354 Ill. 30, 187 N. E. 795;People v. Alton Railroad Co., 352 Ill. 297, 185 N. E. 576;People v. Franklin, 352 Ill. 528, 186 N. E. 137. The obligation continues, notwithstanding the poor and indigent who are t......
- Robertson v. Bachmann
-
Nash v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
...will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the levy was made for existing valid purposes. People v. Alton Railroad Co., 352 Ill. 297, 185 N. E. 576. In the present case the public character of the purposes for which the levy was made is not questioned, nor is it doub......
-
People ex rel. Schaefer v. New York, C. & St. L.R. Co.
...relieved of the obligation to support poor and indigent persons resident of the various townships situated therein. People v. Alton Railroad Co., 352 Ill. 297, 185 N. E. 576. There was no legal basis for a levy for support of paupers outside the county home. The $40,000 item was objected to......