People ex rel. Gauss v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
| Citation | 112 N.E. 278,273 Ill. 110 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 10512.,10512. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. GAUSS, County Collector, v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Peoria County Court; Chester F. Barnett, Judge.
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Louis J. Gauss, County Collector for the collection of taxes, to which the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company objected. From a judgment reducing the assessment in part and overruling other objections, the objector appeals. Reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.
J. A. Connell, of Chicago, and Jack, Irwin & Jack, of Peoria, for appellant.
C. E. McNemar, State's Atty., of Peoria (George A. Shurtleff and Clarence D. Murphy, both of Peoria, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Peoria county overruling objections filed by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, appellant, to a part of the county tax ($38,000) levied ‘for salaries for county officer and deputies,’ and the road and bridge taxes in seven townships in Peoria county. Objections to other taxes filed in the county court are not here involved.
The objection to the county tax was that $33,500 more money was levied than was authorized for the payment of county officers' salaries which are required to be paid by general taxation. The county court held $23,102.90 was valid for the purpose for which the tax was levied, and that the excess was invalid. A judgment was rendered against appellant for county taxes on the basis of a levy of the amount the county court held to be valid, and to that extent the county tax extended against appellant's property was reduced. The objections to the road and bridge taxes were to the forms of the certificates filed by the commissioners of highways with the county board, and to the records or want of records of the August and September meetings of the board of commissioners provided for by sections 50 and 56 of the Road and Bridge Law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1913, c. 121).
It is first contended by appellee that the bill of exceptions fails to show any exception of appellant to the judgment of the county court, and it is for that reason insisted no question is preserved for review on this appeal. We held in Miller v. Anderson, 269 Ill. 608, 109 N. E. 1048, that under section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911, preserving exceptions to adverse rulings of the court by bill of exceptions,was not necessary to have the rulings reviewed by a court of review.
An item of the levy for county taxes of $38,000 for the payment of salaries of county officers was objected to. The court sustained the objection as to $14,897.10, but sustained the levy in the sum of $23,102.90 and abated the county tax against the appellant's property proportionately. The amount of the county tax for the payment of county officers' salaries which the court held valid included $4,400 for the payment of the salaries of probation officer (denominated mothers' pension agent), adult probation officer, and two juvenile probation officers. It is insisted the court erred in not excluding the sum for the payment of their salaries from the levy for the payment of the salaries of county officers, for the reason that they are not county officers. Those positions are provided for by section 14 of the Mothers' Pension Act, being paragraph 311 of chapter 23 of Hurd's Statutes; by section 9 of the act providing for a system of probation, being paragraph 509i of chapter 38, and juvenile probation officers are provided for by section 6 of the act relating to the establishment of juvenile courts, being paragraph 174 of chapter 23. All of them are appointed by the court and hold office during the pleasure of the court appointing them and are subject to removal at will. Some of their duties are prescribed by statute, but the court appointing them is authorized to prescribe duties of such officers and require their performance. They do not perform any of the duties of county officers, but are officers of the court appointing them, and their duties are limited to assisting the court. Their compensation cannot be provided for by a tax levy to pay the salaries of county officers. The court erred in not deducting the further sum of $4,400 from the tax levy to pay the salaries of county officers and reducing the amount of appellant's county tax proportionately.
The proof to support appellant's objection that no meeting of the commissioners was held in Limestone township between the first Tuesday in August and the first Tuesday in September was the testimony of the town clerk. He was asked by appellant if he had with him the record of the commissioners showing the meetings at which the road and bridge tax was levied, and replied he had. He produced a book which he said was the book referred to. Appellant offered in evidence page 37 of the book, which was the record of a meeting of the commissioners held on April 21, 1914, but no mention was made at that meeting of a levy of a tax. Appellant also offered page 38, which was a record of a meeting of the commissioners held the first Tuesday in September, and recited the commissioners determined on a levy of $9,000 for road and bridge purposes. Page 39 was introduced in evidence, and showed a special meeting of the commissioners was held April 14, 1915. We do not think this was sufficient proof that no meeting was held between the first Tuesday in August and the first Tuesday in September, as required by the statute. The presumption is that the taxing authorities proceeded according to law, and that the tax was properly levied and this presumption must be overcome by clear and explicit testimony by an objector who seeks to prove that the levy was not made according to law. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. People, 174 Ill. 80, 50 N. E. 1057. The pages of the record introduced in evidence do not show the August meeting was held, but there was no proof that no such meeting was, in fact, held, or that there was no record of such meeting. We do not think the proof was sufficient on the part of objector to overcome the legal presumption that the commissioners properly discharged their duties in levying the tax.
As to the road and bridge tax of Elmwood township, the town clerk produced a book in which he said records of accounts were kept. He testified there was no record of any meeting of the commissioners between the first Tuesday in August...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Callahan v. Whealan
...probation officers are not county officers or employees but are officers of the court appointing them. People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 273 Ill. 110, 112 N. E. 278. The conclusion sought to be drawn from that fact, however, can scarcely be said to be of avail to plaintif......
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Monongalia County Court
... ... Witter v. County ... Com'rs, 256 Ill. 616, 100 N.E. 148; People v ... C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 273 Ill. 110, 112, 112 N.E. 278 ... For ... ...
-
Hoefer v. Chicago G.W.R. Co.
...the right to appear and be heard as to the justice of such proposed tax levy. In the more recent case of People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 273 Ill. 110, 112 N. E. 278, we held that it was the duty of the town clerk to keep a record of such meetings and that the action of the co......
-
State Ex Rel. Marguerite Hall v. County Court Op Monongalia County.
...court under a similar statute. Witter v. Counity Com'rs., 256 Ill. 616, 100 N. E. 148; People v. C. B. & Q. R, R. Co., 273 111. 110, 112, 112 N. E. 278. For the contrary view, however, see Nicholl v. Koster, 157 Cal. 416, 108 P. 302, and Reed v. Hammond, 18 Cal. App. 442, 123 P. 346. The fi......