People ex rel. Bothfuhr v. New York Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14927.,14927. |
| Citation | 137 N.E. 473,305 Ill. 434 |
| Parties | PEOPLE et rel. BOTHFUHR, County Collector, v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Proceeding by the People, on relation of A. Bothfuhr, County Collector, against the New York Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for taxes against the defendant, it appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 300 Ill. 323, 133 N. E. 285.
Appeal from Kankakee County Court; James T. Burns, Judge.
W. R. Hunter, of Kankakee, for appellant.
Anker C. Jensen, State's Atty., of Kankakee, for appellee.
This appeal is by the New York Central Railroad Company from a judgment of the county court of Kankakee county for a county highway tax.
At the September session of the county board of Kankakee county in 1921 the board levied a rate of 50 cents on the $100 valuation of taxable property for general county purposes and an additional rate of 25 cents for a county highway tax, in the following language:
‘And the sum of $68,000 as a ‘county highway tax,’ for the purpose of improving, maintaining, and repairing the state-aid roads required to be improved, maintained, and repaired by the county, and for the payment of lands, quarries, pits, or other deposits of road material required by the county for such purposes.'
No vote of the people authorized the levy.
Counsel for appellant contends that there was no valid law authorizing the levy, and it was therefore void. The act purporting to give county boards power to levy such a tax was enacted in 1921, amending sections 25 and 27 of the law in relation to counties, and the sixth paragraph of section 25 as amended is as follows:
‘To cause to be annually levied and collected, taxes for county purposes, including all purposes for which money may be raised by the county by taxation, not exceeding fifty cents on the $100 valuation, * * * and also in addition thereto an annual tax not to exceed twenty-five cents on the $100 valuation for the purposes of improving and maintaining the state-aid roads and of paying the interest and principal of bonded indebtedness heretofore duly authorized for the construction of state-aid roads in the county, unless additional taxes for said bonds and interest or improvement and maintenance have otherwise been authorized by a vote of the people of the county.’ Laws of 1921, p. 385.
The argument is that this statute is void because it discriminates between counties where additional taxes for improvement and maintenance of state-aid roads have otherwise been authorized by a vote of the people of the county and counties where such vote has not been taken under existing laws. Such provision might have been made so that a levy under this section would be useless and there would be two taxes for the same purpose. That is not discrimination,but a reasonable and necessary exception. The paragraph in question applies to every county where a vote has not been taken for the same purpose, and, if there has not been such a vote, this law applies.
The next proposition of counsel is that the levy was for seven separate and distinct purposes, and for that reason was void.
Section 121 of the Revenue Act as amended in 1921 is as follows:
Laws of 1921, p. 761.
Section 14 of the act in relation to state highways is as follows:
Said together with all other county taxes, shall not exceed the present constitutional limitation unless otherwise authorized by a vote of the people of the county. Laws of 1921, p. 793.
The provision of section 121 of the Revenue Act that, when a levy is for several purposes, the amount for each purpose shall be stated separately, applies to every levy made by the county board, but the levy made for the improvement and maintenance of the state-aid roads was for a single purpose. The levy for improvement and maintenance of a highway without material for that purpose would not be complete or effective, and procuring material was included in the single purpose for which the highway tax was levied.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Counsel for the objector in this and other cases considered by the court at this term contend that the county board in a county where additional taxes have been authorized by a vote of the people of the county for highway purposes has no authority to levy and part of the annual tax of 25 cents authorized by paragraph 6 of section 25 of the County Act. This section authorizes the county board to cause to be annually levied and collected taxes for county purposes not exceeding 50 cents on the $100 valuation, ‘and also in addition thereto an annual tax not to exceed twenty-five cents on the $100 valuation, for the purposes of improving and maintaining the state-aid roads and of paying the interest and principal of bonded indebtedness heretofore duly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Browne v. Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co.
...additional tax for the improvement and maintenance of state-aid roads, but it was held to the contrary in People v. New York Central Railroad Co., 305 Ill. 434, 137 N. E. 473. It is argued that the act of June 24, 1921, in relation to state highways, violates section 13 of article 4 of the ......
-
People ex rel. Harrell v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...and repair are embraced in the one general purpose. The situation here is analogous to that in People ex rel. Bothfuhr v. New York Central Railroad Co., 305 Ill. 434, 137 N.E. 473, 474, where it was held that the 'levy for improvement and maintenance of a highway without material for that p......
-
People ex rel. Carr v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...138 N. E. 656;People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 306 Ill. 467, 138 N. E. 199;People v. New York Central Railroad Co., 305 Ill. 434, 137 N. E. 473. In February, 1923, the maximum limitation of $1.92 on each $100 assessed valuation for educational purposes inclu......
- Stearns v. Curry