People ex rel. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Hulman
| Citation | 201 N.E.2d 103,31 Ill.2d 166 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38335,38335 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Harry L. HULMAN, Director of Revenue, Respondent. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Mayer, Friedlich, Spiess, Tierney, Brown & Platt, Chicago (Sherwood K. Platt, Alfred M. Rogers, Jr., and Arthur S. Rollin, Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Willard Ice, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.
On relation of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, we have granted leave for the filing of an original petition for writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Harry L. Hulman, Director of Revenue of the State of Illinois, to cause petitioner's property, located in the 29 counties in which it operates in this State, to be 'legally and properly' assessed for the year 1963, 'pursuant to authority of the Illinois Revenue Act.' More specifically, petitioner claims that an improper method of determining fair cash value was employed by the Department and that the 1963 fair cash value of its property arrived at is so excessive as to amount to constructive if not actual fraud, and what it seeks is an order to compel the Department to reassess its property. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss which raises an initial issue of whether remedy by way of mandamus is available in the case.
From the pleadings and exhibits filed it appears that the matter of assessing petitioner's property for the year 1963 was first taken up by the parties on November 7 and 25, 1963. Subsequently, on December 21, 1963, petitioner was informed by an officially published notice, (see: Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 120, par. 618) that the Department had determined that the fair cash value of petitioner's property in the State was $114,494,000, and that after the application of a statewide equalization factor of 50%, the equalized assessed value of such property was $57,250,000. See: Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 120, par. 561.
On December 30, 1963, the petitioner pursued two courses of action. First, as provided in section 137 of the Revenue Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 120, par. 618) it applied to the Department for a review and correction of the assessments. Second, it filed in this court a petition for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus seeking the same relief, viz., a reassessment of its property. Thereafter, by a letter dated January 16, 1964, the Department advised defendant that upon review and further consideration of the evidence presented on November 7 and 25, 1963, it had determined that the previously published fair cash valuation and equalized assessed valuation were final. Coincidentally, on January 16, 1964, this court granted leave to petitioner to file a petition for writ of mandamus. For reasons later to be stated, it is our opinion that the order granting such leave was improvidently entered.
Five days later, on January 21, 1964, the petitioner applied to the Department for a rehearing. No action was or has as yet been taken on such petition and it is stated in respondent's brief, we believe with justification, that the doubt cast upon any further administrative action by the entry of this court into the controversy has precluded it from doing so. As required by section 86 of the Revenue Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 120, par. 567) and as permitted by section 139 despite the pendency of judicial review (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 120, par. 620) the Department has certified the equalized assessed valuation of petitioner's property as originally determined to the county clerks in the various taxing districts involved.
We are first met by respondent's contention that judicial review of the administrative decision by a mandamus proceeding is improper and we find the point well taken. As was noted in Moline Tool Co. v. Department of Revenue, 410 Ill. 35, 37, 101 N.E.2d 71 the Administrative Review Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 110, par. 264 et seq.) was designed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midland Hotel Corp. v. Director of Employment Sec., 1-94-2103
...to final decision may be raised through administrative review); People ex rel. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company v. Hulman (1964), 31 Ill.2d 166, 169 [201 N.E.2d 103] (mandamus does not lie where administrative review is Thus, where a final agency decision has been rendered and the ci......
-
City of Wood Dale v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd.
... ... Duggan, Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant ... Neil F. Hartigan, Atty ... (People ex rel. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Hulman (1964), 31 Ill.2d 166, ... ...
-
People ex rel. Petersen v. Turner Co.
... ... April 15, 1976 ... Page 104 ... [37 Ill.App.3d 451] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Jerome Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for petitioner ... Castle, burns, O'Mally & Countryman, John Countryman, DeKalb, Wm. Dickinson, Stamford, Conn., for respondent ... ex ... Page 107 ... rel. Chi. & N.W. Ry. v. Hulman, 31 Ill.2d 166, 201 N.E.2d 103 (1964) and Goldfarb v. White, 54 Ill.App.2d 483, 203 N.E.2d 599 (1964). It also points out the absence of language ... ...
-
Smith v. Department of Public Aid
... ... [10 Ill.Dec. 522] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Paul V. Esposito and Donald J. Townsend, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), ... Department of Public Aid (1972), 51 Ill.2d 88, 280 N.E.2d 706; People ex rel. Hillison v. [67 Ill.2d 541] Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co ... Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Hulman (1964), 31 Ill.2d 166, 201 N.E.2d 103.) Review of agency action by prior ... ...