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

• Citation: 198 N.E. 212,361 Ill. 470
• Decision Date: 24 October 1935
• Docket Number: No. 23069.,23069.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. FRICK, County Collector, v. CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO.

361 Ill. 470

198 N.E. 212

PEOPLE ex rel. FRICK, County Collector,

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

No. 23069.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1935.

Tax proceedings by the People, on the relation of G. J. Frick, County Collector, against the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company. From a judgment overruling objections of the defendant to certain taxes levied against its property for the year 1933 and from an order of sale, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Williamson County Court; E. N. Bowen, Judge.

Denison & Spiller, of Marion (K. L. Richmond, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles C. Murrah, State's Atty., of Herrin, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

The county court of Williamson county overruled the objections of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company to certain taxes levied against its property for the year 1933 and entered an order of sale. This appeal followed.

A levy was made for, ‘County farm, $2600.’ In People v. Alton & Eastern Railroad Co., 359 Ill. 440, 194 N. E. 573, we pointed out that we have repeatedly held such levies void when the amount to be raised by the county is for several purposes and the amount for each purpose is not stated separately.

The levy of the village of White Ash contained an item, ‘Police department, $600,’ to which objection was made. By section 1 of article 8 of the Cities and Villages Act (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 24, § 123, Cahill's Rev. St. 1933, c. 24, par. 115), it is required that the annual tax levy ordinance shall specify in detail the purposes for which all appropriations are levied and the amount appropriated for each purpose. A levy merely stating that it is for a certain department of a municipal government does not state separately the purposes for which the money is appropriated or levied and the amount of each purpose, as the statuterequires. We have held such levies are void. People v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 359 Ill. 351, 194 N. E. 570;Siegel v. City of Belleville, 349 Ill. 240, 181 N. E. 687.

The total levy of the village of White Ash was $1,800, including an item, ‘General expense, $350.’ The total levy of the city of Johnston City was $47,500. One of the items is, ‘General expense, $4000.’ The objections challenged the validity of these items. To justify a levy for contingent or miscellaneous purposes, the sum levied must be a very small proportion of the total amount levied. The levies for general expense here do not come within that category and are void. People v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 326 Ill. 179, 157 N. E. 200;People v. Wabash Railway Co., 321 Ill. 39, 151 N. E. 601;People v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 319 Ill. 415, 150 N. E. 247.

Included in the tax levy of the city of Johnston City were two items covered by the objections, i. e., ‘Water fund, $5000,’ and, ‘Light fund, $4000.’ It cannot be determined from either item whether the amount levied is to be expended for water and light, respectively, or for salaries, purchase of equipment, acquiring real estate, extensions, repairs, or other expenses. These items fall within the condemnation of uncertain, vague, and indefinite levies. People v. Alton & Eastern Railroad Co., supra; People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 243 Ill. 217, 90 N. E. 730. The taxpayer's right to have separately stated the purposes for which public money is appropriated or levied is a substantial right, of which he may not be deprived. People v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., supra; People v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co., 359 Ill. 301, 194 N. E. 568.

The items objected to in the annual levy of the city of Marion were: ‘Salaries of officers and employees of the department of accounts and finance, $3000.’ ‘Salaries of officers and employees of the department of public property, $2500.’ ‘Attorneys' fees and court expenses, $3000.’ It is contended that each of the items is a lump-sum levy for two separate purposes. Where a particular appropriation or levy is not sufficiently definite to disclose to the taxpayer the purpose for which the money is to be expended, it fails to comply with the statutory requirement and is void. However, it is not necessary to specify every item which a municipality may expect to pay out of a particular appropriation whenever the general purpose designated informs the taxpayer of the purposes for which the money is to be expended. A single general purpose is sufficient to include every appropriate expenditure although there may be many items. People v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., supra; People v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co., supra. In People v. Bowman, 253 Ill. 234, 97 N. E. 304, 307, we held that a levy for, ‘Salary, clerk hire and expenses of county treasurer,’ sufficiently complies with the statute. An item, ‘For the payment of fees and salaries and clerk hire of the various county officers,’ was held valid under such a general designation in People v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 273 Ill. 452, 113 N. E. 142, 143. In People v. Vogt, 262 Ill. 170, 104 N. E. 226, we held an item of $16,000 for officers' and employees' fees and salaries invalid because it included, first, officers' salaries, and, second, employees' fees and salaries. The two salary items here under consideration are not subject to that criticism. As to the item of $3,000 for attorneys' fees and court expenses, it is claimed that if no court expenses were incurred the city could pay the entire amount for attorneys' fees. Municipalities ordinarily compensate their attorneys for regular duties by way of salaries. Court proceedings frequently necessitate the payment of attorney fees in addition to such salaries, either to the officer entitled to such salary under proper provisions or to additional counsel employed. We think it is plain that this item covers the expense of court proceedings, including incidental attorneys' fees, and does not include the payment of compensation to attorneys for other services. Courts will not adopt strained constructions in order to invalidate a tax, and the burden rests upon an objector to show its invalidity. People v. New York Central Railroad Co., 355 Ill. 80, 188 N. E. 807;People v. Marshall Field & Co., 355 Ill. 633, 189 N. E. 885. The levy comes within that class of cases where the single general purpose embraces appropriate items and sufficiently informs the taxpayer of the purposes for which the money is to be expended. The court correctly overruled the objections to the items in the levy of the city of Marion.

The next...