People ex rel. Brockamp v. Schlitz Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1913
• Citation: 103 N.E. 555,261 Ill. 22
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. BROCKAMP, County Collector, v. SCHLITZ BREWING CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

261 Ill. 22

103 N.E. 555

PEOPLE ex rel. BROCKAMP, County Collector,

v.SCHLITZ BREWING CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1913.

Appeal from Christian County Court; C. A. Prater, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, on relation of Joseph Brockamp, County Collector, against the Schlitz Brewing Company. From a judgment against the defendant, it appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

J. E. Hogan, of Taylorville, for appellant.

Harry B. Hershey, State's Atty., Edward E. Adams, City Atty., and W. B. McBride, all of Taylorville, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

[1] This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Christian county against certain real estate of appellant for nonpayment of taxes. The city of Taylorville has an ordinance for the collection of water rents, in and by which, before the 10th of March each year, the city clerk is required to make return to the county collector of all delinquent water tax, and that the same then goes on the delinquent books, and the property is advertised and sold the same as other property throughout the county upon which the taxes remain unpaid. The city of Taylorville for five years, beginning with 1907, made charges upon its books against the Schlitz Brewing Company for water tax against the two pieces of property involved in this suit. No attempt was made to comply with the ordinance requiring a delinquent list during these five years, and until March, 1913, at which time a delinquent list containing the property involved in this suit, with other property, was returned to the county collector. The property was advertised, and objections were filed in the county court to the rendition of judgment, based upon the ground that there is no authority of law authorizing the return of delinquent water rents and the obtaining of judgment and sale of the property in this manner, and for the further reason that the property had changed hands during the period of time for which the water rent was delinquent. The facts further disclose that the water rent was paid during the year beginning May 1, 1912, until May 1, 1913, and this entire delinquency occurred for the five years immediately preceding that time. The cause was heard upon the objections and the court rendered judgment for the amount of the water rent, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant contends that under the statute upon which this ordinance is based the use of the word ‘tax’ was only intended to mean rent or rate, and that it was not a tax, strictly speaking, and, further, that where was a transfer of the property there could be no lien against the purchaser or the property in the hands of the purchaser.

Section 257 of the Cities and Villages Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 24, p. 330), under the head of waterworks, provides as follows: ‘The common council of such cities, or trustees of such towns or villages, shall have power to make and enforce all needful rules and regulations in the erection, construction and management of such water-works, and for the use of water supplied by the same. And such cities, towns and villages shall have the right and power to tax, assess and collect from the inhabitants thereof such tax, rent or rates for the use and benefit of water used or supplied to them by such water-works, as the common council or board of trustees, as the case may be, shall deem just and expedient. And all such water taxes,...