People ex rel. Euziere v. Rice
| Decision Date | 06 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 22137.,22137. |
| Citation | 356 Ill. 373,190 N.E. 681 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. EUZIERE v. RICE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from the Circuit Court, Kankakee County; A. W. De Selm, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the People, on the relation of Carter Euziere, against William Rice, Commissioner of Highways for the Town of Rockville. To review a final judgment awarding the writ which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant brings certiorari.
Affirmed.
Eva L. Minor, of Kankakee, for plaintiff in error.
A. L. & C. M. Granger, of Kankakee, for defendant in error.
Between February 1, 1924, and June 30, 1927, defendant in error, Carter Euziere, sold various articles of merchandise, such as stone, tile, cement, etc., to the commissioner of highways for the town of Rockville, Kankakee county, all of which were used as materials for repairing and improving the roads and bridges of that township. The items were in various amounts, from 30 cents to $40.85. Payment having been refused, a suit in assumpsit was started in the circuit court of Kankakee county, resulting in a judgment in favor of defendant in error and against the commissioner of highways in the sum of $1,290.18. On appeal from this judgment to the Appellate Court for the Second District it was affirmed, and on a further appeal upon a certificate of importance it was affirmed in this court. Euziere v. Highway Commission, 346 Ill. 131, 178 N. E. 397. This judgment remaining unpaid, defendant in error on September 7, 1932, filed his petition for mandamus in the circuit court of Kankakee county, in which he alleged the recovery of this judgment and its affirmance by the Appellate Court and this court; that on the 23d day of August, 1932, he had served upon plaintiff in error, as commissioner of highways for town of Rockville, a written demand that he levy a tax for the purpose of paying the judgment, and that plaintiff in error had refused to comply with that demand. The petition further set forth the equalized value of the property of the town, together with other necessary allegations, and prayed a writ of mandamus commanding plaintiff in error, as such commissioner, to include in the determinationof the taxes for road and bridge purposes an amount sufficient to pay the judgment. Defendant below, who is plaintiff in error here, demurred to the petition, the demurrer was overruled, and he elected to stand by the demurrer. A final judgment was thereupon entered awarding the writ and commanding plaintiff in error, as such commissioner, to levy and certify to the board of supervisors of Kankakee county a tax sufficient in amount to pay the judgment, interest, and costs. This judgment having been affirmed by the Appellate Court, the case is here for further review upon certiorari.
It is first contended by plaintiff in error that the commissioner of highways is without any legal authority to levy a tax to pay a judgment. This contention was dismissed by the Appellate Court as being absurd, without any discussion of the point involved. After a full consideration of the authorities relied upon, we have arrived at the same conclusion.
Plaintiff in error contends that the power to make any levy is entirely statutory and that it cannot be exercised unless clearly appearing to exist. He does not say so, but it is a necessary corollary of his argument to assume that the payment of this judgment is not a payment for road and bridge purposes. It is, of course, true that a tax cannot be levied except for a purpose permitted by statute. Such an argument, however, cannot be extended to a point where it would, in effect, repeal definite statutory provisions. When this case was before this court before, we said that ‘a legislative grant carries with it, by implication, the powers necessary to make the grant effective.’ Euziere v. Highway Commission, supra, p. 134, of 346 Ill., 178 N. E. 397, 398. In the same opinion we pointed out that it was not only within the power of the commissioner to purchase the materials which were then, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Palatine v. Hahnemann Institutions of Chicago, Inc.
... ... City of Chicago v. Lord, 281 Ill. 414, 118 N. E. 65;People v. Wadlow, 166 Ill. 119, 46 N. E. 775;Smith v. Stevens, 133 Ill. 183, 24 ... ...
-
People ex rel. Wanless v. City of Chicago
...carrying on the essential governmental functions, that fact should have been presented by answer and supported by proof. People v. Rice, 356 Ill. 373, 190 N.E. 681. No such showing has been made in this case. Such general allegation was contained in the answer but no proof was offered to su......
-
People ex rel. O'Meara v. Smith
...mandamus brought against an officer who has failed to act, the former is not a necessary party in the mandamus suit. People v. Rice, 356 Ill. 373, 377, 190 N.E. 681;People v. Brady, 262 Ill. 578, 105 N.E. 1;People v. Gazelle, 299 Ill. 58, 132 N.E. 273. Charles Casey, Director of the Departm......
-
People ex rel. John V. Farwell Co. v. Kelly
...be done but to make payment, and whether or not that payment shall be made is not discretionary with any public official. People v. Rice, 356 Ill. 373, 190 N. E. 681;People v. City of Chicago, 360 Ill. 25, 195 N. E. 451, 453. In the case last cited we said: ‘Neither the Legislature nor any ......