People ex rel. Davis v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Citation | 347 Ill. 377,179 N.E. 879 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21150.,21150. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. DAVIS, County Collector, v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Tax proceedings by the People, on the relation of A. C. Davis, County Collector, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Perry County Court; W. P. Green, Judge.
Max E. Hanson, State's Atty., of Pinckneyville, and L. A. Cranston, of Duquoin, for appellant.
W. O. Edwards, of Pinckneyville, and Charles E. Feirich, of Carbondale (R. V. Fletcher and E. C. Craig, both of Chicago, and R. C. Beckett, of St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for appellee.
A. C. Davis, county collector of Perry county, filed a petition in the county court of that county for a judgment against the lands and railroad property of appellee, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, for taxes for the year 1930 alleged to be delinquent. Appellee filed objections thereto, which, upon hearing, were sustained and judgment entered discharging the petition as to appellee. From this judgment the county collector has appealed to this court.
The taxes in controversy are a county tax of 12 cents on each $100 and a road tax of 35 cents on each $100 valuation of appellee's property. The objections to the county tax are that the record of the county board fails to show that any rate of county tax was ever determined by the county board, and also fails to show that an aye and nay vote was taken in making the tax levy, as required by law. The objection to the road and bridge tax is that the ‘certificate of levy does not determine any rate and the road district record fails to show that any rate was determined.’
[1][2][3] The regular meeting of the county board was held on September 16, 1930, and it is conceded that on that date the record shows an order for the county clerk to extend the taxes, and that in such order the rate at which the taxes were to be levied was left blank and that on that date no rate was fixed. Appellant sought to meet appellee's objection in this respect by asking leave to amend the record of the board to show an adjournment from September 16 to October 7, 1930, and to amend the record of a meeting held October 7 to show proceedings similar to those shown by the record of September 16, except that the rate was fixed at 12 cents by an aye and nay vote of the board. A record of the taxing body showing the levy or assessment of a tax must be kept, but on a proper showing may be so amended as to show the truth. People v. Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railroad Co., 270 Ill. 477, 110 N. E. 720;People v. Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Co., 270 Ill. 472, 110 N. E. 723;People v. Schlitz Transfer Co., 333 Ill. 333, 164 N. E. 702. In order that such amendment be made, however, the evidence of a mistake in the original record and that the amended record speaks the truth must be clear and satisfactory. People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 271 Ill. 213, 110 N. E. 849. The court did not allow the amendment to be made but allowed evidence as to what took place at the meeting of the board on September 16, September 23 and October 7, 1930. Appellant proffered an amendment to the record of the meeting of October 7, but did not offer one as to the meeting of September 16 or September 23. The county clerk was called by appellant as a witness and he produced the records of the meetings on those dates. The only one of those records mentioning the tax in question was that of September 16. The abstract does not show that the meeting of September 16 adjourned to any particular time. The record produced by the county clerk shows that the meeting of September 23 did not adjourn to any particular time. Neither the county clerk nor his deputy was present on October 7 at a meeting of the county board, which consisted of only three members, at which any action was taken with reference to fixing the rate of the county tax. The proposed amendment of the record of October 7 recites that the meeting of September 16 adjourned to October 7. The evidence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial