People ex rel. Browne v. Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15097.,15097.
• Citation: 306 Ill. 402,138 N.E. 127
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE et rel. BROWNE, County Collector, v. CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO.

306 Ill. 402

138 N.E. 127

PEOPLE et rel. BROWNE, County Collector,

v.CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO.

No. 15097.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 2, 1923.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Homer M. Browne, County Collector of Iroquois County, for the sale of lands for taxes. From a judgment overruling the objections of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company, it appeals.

Reversed in part, and remanded.Appeal from Iroquois County Court; John H. Gillan, Judge.

Free P. Morris and Roscoe C. South, both of Watseka (H. T. Dick, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Elmer A. Taylor, State's Atty., Robert Goodyear, City Atty., Arthur Bohn and John P. Pallissard, all of Wateska, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

The Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company filed objections to the application of the collector of Iroquois county, at the June term, 1921, of the county court, for judgment and order of sale against its property for taxes. The objections were overruled, judgment was rendered against the property, and the railway company appealed.

The county board levied a tax of $296,050, of which $45,000 was for county highway tax, $150,000 for aid in the construction of roads, and $101,050 for all other county purposes. These amounts required a rate of 60 cents on the $100 valuation. The appellant objected that the tax in excess of 50 cents on the $100 was unauthorized. Section 14 of act June 24, 1921 (Laws of 1921, p. 793), authorizes the levy of the tax in addition to the general tax of 50 cents for county purposes, unless additional taxes for the improvement and maintenance of state-aid roads or for the payment of the interest and principal of bonded indebtedness for the construction of such roads have otherwise been authorized by vote of the people of the county. The objection that the county board was not authorized to levy the county highway tax thus provided for, to an amount in excess of 50 cents on the $100, was considered and overruled in People v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co., 305 Ill. 454, 137 N. E. 476.

It is also argued that the section is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory in excluding counties which had already voted additional taxes for the purpose from levying the 25 cents 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 Constitution, by amending various sections of the statute without inserting the sections amended at length in the new act. This act does not purport to amend any section of the statute but to be an independent act to establish a system of state highways. It declares what shall be regarded as state highways, charges the department of public works and buildings with the administration of the act, confers additional powers on it for that purpose, and makes provision for the control and supervision of state-aid roads by the county board until taken over by the department of public works and buildings, and for their improvement, maintenance, and repair by county funds. Its effect is to repeal or modify all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with its terms, but such amendment by implication is not prohibited by section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution. People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N. E. 537;Hollingsworth v. Chicago & Carterville Coal Co., 243 Ill. 98, 90 N. E. 276;School Directors v. School Directors, 135 Ill. 464, 28 N. E. 49;People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388.

It is insisted that section 17, which provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to modify, amend, or repeal existing laws, relative to the construction and improvement of state-aid roads, state bond issue roads, federal aid roads, or roads constructed under section 15d of the Road and Bridge Act (Hurd's Rev. St. c. 121), is inconsistent with section 14, but it is not indicated in what respect section 14 modifies, amends, or repeals any requirement of existing laws in regard to the construction or improvement of any of the roads mentioned in section 17.

Objection is also made to the county highway tax because it appears that on September 21, 1920, there was a balance in the county treasury of $367,651.01-enough to pay the ordinary expenses of the county for three years, based upon the amount paid out in 1920 and the amount levied for that purpose in 1921-and it is argued that this levy would merely cause an unnecessary accumulation of money in the county treasury. It was shown that a large part of his balance in the treasury was held for the use of the townships, and that the balance for county purposes was $80,964.05. Taxes should not be levied for the unnecessary accumulation of funds or for remote contingencies which may never occur, but the question of the proper amount of taxes to be raised for current county expenses is committed to the reasonable discretion of the county board, and the courts will only interfere to prevent a clear abuse of this discretion. People v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Co., 261 Ill. 33, 103 N. E. 614. The presumption is that the county board has properly discharged its duty, and the mere circumstance that, in estimating in advance the amount that may be necessary to be levied, an amount greater than that actually required has been determined upon, is no defenseto a taxpayer in refusing to pay his taxes, unless the amount levied is so grossly excessive as to show a fraudulent purpose in making the levy. People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 257 Ill. 208, 100 N. E. 502;People v. Sandberg Co., 277 Ill. 567, 115 N. E. 741. Since only $80,964.05 was available for county purposes, the levy of $101,050 for all purposes for the ensuing year, which did not appear to be of itself excessive, cannot be regarded as unreasonable. The county board has the right to provide for maintaining a balance in the treasury sufficient at all times to meet all current claims upon it, and it cannot be said that the levy in question was not justified by sound business judgment.

Objection was made to the city tax of the city of Watseka. This tax was extended at the rate of $2.27 on the $100, consisting of $1.33 levied for general purposes, 16 cents for library, 47 cents for bonds and interest, 8 cents for hospital, 7 cents for maintenance of waterworks, and 16 cents for street lighting. Objection was made to the last two items on the ground that they should have been included in the rate of $1.33 for general purposes. They were levied under the act of June 21, 1883 (Laws 1883, p. 68), as amended June 30, 1919 (Laws of 1919, p. 862). This act authorized the city council to levy two-thirds of a mill on the dollar for the extension of watermains and the maintenance of waterworks and two mills on the dollar for the purpose of lighting streets, provided that nothing in the act should be construed to increase the amount of aggregate taxes that might be levied under section 1 of article 8 of the act, to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, approved April 10, 1872. The latter section, as amended in 1917 (Laws of 1917, p. 240), provides that the aggregate amount of taxes levied for any one year, exclusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness or interest thereon, shall not exceed the rate of 2 per cent. in cities and villages of less than 150,000 population. This section was amended in 1919 (Laws of 1919, p. 732), so as to provide that the aggregate amount of taxes so levied for any one year, exclusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness or interest thereon, and exclusive of taxes authorized by law for specific purposes, shall not exceed the rate of 1 1/3 per centum from the taking effect of the act to and including the year 1921, and thereafter eight-tenths of one per centum in cities and villages of less than 150,000 population, according to the last national or state census. It is claimed that under this amendment the amounts levied for the maintenance of waterworks and for street lighting were authorized by law for specific purposes, and were therefore excluded from the aggregate of 1 1/3 per centum mentioned in the amendment. Under section 1 of article 5 of act 1872 (Laws 1871-72, p. 227), which provides for the incorporation of cities and villages, city councils were authorized by paragraph 2 to appropriate money for corporate purposes; by paragraph 3 to levy and collect taxes for general and special purposes; by paragraph 11 to provide for the lighting of the streets. By section 1 of article 10 of the same act city councils were authorized to provide for a supply, of water and the construction of waterworks. Section 1 of article 8 provided for the levy of a tax by the passage of an ordinance assessing the amount upon the real and personal property within the city. The law as originally enacted imposed no limitation upon the...