People ex rel. Biebinger v. Cincinnati, I.&W. Ry. Co.
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | WILKIN |
| Citation | 224 Ill. 523,79 N.E. 657 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1906 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. BIEBINGER, County Collector, v. CINCINNATI, I. & W. RY. CO. |
224 Ill. 523
79 N.E. 657
PEOPLE ex rel. BIEBINGER, County Collector,
v.
CINCINNATI, I. & W. RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Dec. 22, 1906.
Appeal from Piatt County Court; F. M. Shonkwiler, Judge.
Application by the people, on the relation of I. N. Biebinger, county collector, for judgment and order of sale against the property of the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Company for taxes. From a judgment sustaining an objection to an item in the levy, the people appeal. Affirmed.
[224 Ill. 523]A. C. Edie, State's Atty., for appellant.
George W. Fisher, for appellee.
WILKIN, J.
At the June term, 1906, of the county court of Piatt county the county collector made application for a judgment and order of sale against the property of appellee, the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Company, for [224 Ill. 524]delinquent county taxes for the year 1905. In making the levy for county purposes the board of supervisors specified five different items for which the taxes were to be extended, the third and fifth of which were as follows: ‘Three-For payment of county claims (janitor's services, supplies, repairs, improvements and current expenses) $12,000.’ ‘Five-For building bridges, etc., as may be required by law, $5,000.’ Objections were filed by appellee to each of these items on the ground that they were not sufficiently specific under the requirements of Revenue Act, § 121, c. 120 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905). The objection to the third item was sustained and to the fifth overruled, and judgment entered accordingly. To reverse the judgment of the county court for error in sustaining the objection to the third item, this appeal has been prosecuted.
A motion has been made by appellee to dismiss the appeal and strike the record, brief, and abstract of appellant from the files because there is no placita or convening order of the county court preceding the final judgment; also because the bill of exceptions does not show that there was any prayer or motion by appellant for an appeal, or order granting the same. The record is not as full, complete, and orderly arranged as it should be. The placita is not in its proper place in the record and is not as specific as it should be. It does, however, sufficiently set out the convening order of the court for the June term to answer all practical purposes. What is said of the placita may also be said of the order allowing an appeal. Greater care should have been taken in the recitals as to that order, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Williamson v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
...774;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 23, 73 N. E. 310;People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N. E. 657;People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 231 Ill. 209, 83 N. E. 111;People v. Illinois & Indiana Rai......
-
People ex rel. Toman v. Advance Heating Co., No. 25870.
...‘Subway lighting, including unpaid bills, $100,500.’ In [33 N.E.2d 211]People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N.E. 657, the levy contained an item ‘For payment of county claims (janitor's services, supplies, repairs, improvements and current expenses) $12......
-
Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Averill
...right of action arising to appellee by reason of any matters at that date existing. The legal effect of a covenant not to sue is not the [79 N.E. 657]same as that of a release. A covenant not to sue a sole tort-feasor is considered in law a discharge and a bar to an action against him; but ......
-
People ex rel. Holmquist v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...Indianapolis & Western Railway Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 197, 72 N. E. 774;People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N. E. 657. We are of opinion the county court erred in sustaining the objections to the levy ‘for salaries county officers, deputies and clerks......
-
People ex rel. Williamson v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
...774;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 23, 73 N. E. 310;People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N. E. 657;People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 231 Ill. 209, 83 N. E. 111;People v. Illinois & Indiana Rai......
-
People ex rel. Toman v. Advance Heating Co., 25870.
...‘Subway lighting, including unpaid bills, $100,500.’ In [33 N.E.2d 211]People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N.E. 657, the levy contained an item ‘For payment of county claims (janitor's services, supplies, repairs, improvements and current expenses) $12......
-
Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Averill
...right of action arising to appellee by reason of any matters at that date existing. The legal effect of a covenant not to sue is not the [79 N.E. 657]same as that of a release. A covenant not to sue a sole tort-feasor is considered in law a discharge and a bar to an action against him; but ......
-
People ex rel. Holmquist v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...Indianapolis & Western Railway Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 197, 72 N. E. 774;People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N. E. 657. We are of opinion the county court erred in sustaining the objections to the levy ‘for salaries county officers, deputies and clerks......