People ex rel. Gill v. Otis
| Decision Date | 15 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 24039.,24039. |
| Citation | 10 N.E.2d 672,367 Ill. 136 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. GILL, County Collector, v. OTIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; Edmund K. Jarecki, Judge.
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Joseph L. Gill, County Collector, to collect taxes levied against the property of J. S. Otis, who filed objections to the levy. From a judgment refusing the relator relief as to $1,441,550.24 of the levy of $1,700,000, the relator appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Marshall V. Kearney, Jacob Shamberg, William T. Crilly, and Manuel E. Cowen, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert E. Corcoran, Roy R. Barr, Otto C. Rentner, and James F. Clancy, all of Chicago (Robert N. Holt, Robert S. Cushman, and Pomeroy Sinnock, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
The county collector of Cook county applied to the county court for judgment against the property of the objector, appellee here, for delinquent taxes for the year 1934. The appellee filed objections challenging the validity of the county highway corporate levy. Judgment was refused as to $1,441,550.24 of the levy of $1,700,000. The collector brings the record here by appeal.
The annual appropriation ordinance passed on February 5, 1934, appropriated $3,233,667.42 for county highway corporate purposes, which included $1,523,667.42 payable from sources other than the tax levy to be thereafter made. The ordinance specifically particularized the object and purpose of each item and the exact amount appropriated for each. The following appears in the appropriation ordinance relating to tax anticipation warrants and tax anticipation notes: ‘Interest on 1929 Notes-Dec. 1, 1933, to Nov. 30, 1934, $25,000; Interest on 1932 Tax Warrants, Dec. 1, 1933, to Nov. 30, 1934, $15,000; Interest on 1933 Tax Warrants, Dec. 1, 1933, to Nov. 30, 1934, $25,000; Interest on 1934 Tax Warrants, Dec. 1, 1933, to Nov. 30, 1934, $100,000.’ Also an item as follows: ‘Tax Deficiency Fund, 12 per cent on Estimated Income of $2,925,000, $204,000.’ (Computation not ours.) The county court held that the item of tax deficiency fund of 12 per cent., said to amount to $204,000, should be treated as ‘loss and cost,’ and of this amount all in excess of .0463, or $109,548, was improperly included therein; that a further item of $258,449.76, appropriated for and specifically stated in the tax levy to be payable from and included in the tax levy for salaries and wages of regular employees of the Highway Department was properly levied, and overruled objections thereto. The correctness of this latter ruling is not challenged. This latter amount was deducted from the levy of $1,700,000 and objections sustained to the balance of $1,441,550.24. The objector takes the position that the levy was void as to the last-named sum. To support his charge, he urges (a) that there was a tax levied to pay the interest for prior years on the anticipation warrants and notes, and (b) that the levy does not show, among the many items, what are payable from sources without the levy nor what are within the levy, and therefore the levy fails as to $1,441,550.24. The objection to the ‘tax deficiency fund’ will be referred to later.
The appropriations fall into two distinct groups. Under the first class are detailed the wages and salaries of the regular employees of the Highway Department aggregating $516,282.04, of which $257,832.28 was payable from other sources than the tax levy, leaving $258,449.76 to be raised by the levy. In the other division are minutely detailed different appropriations consisting of 128 separate and distinct items pertinent to the highway department. In this schedule is the interest on the tax anticipation warrants and tax anticipation notes. The total of this division is $2,707,385.38. This amount represents the difference between the total of $3,223,667.42 and the sum of $516,282.04, the total of the first group. This statement and itemization of the different groupings is carried verbatim into the tax levy.
The tax levy ordinance so far as relevant here is as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Amounts ¦Amounts ¦Amounts ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of ¦of Appropria-¦of ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Appropria-¦ ¦Appropria-¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦tions ¦tions Payable¦tions ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Payable ¦ ¦Payable ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from ¦from Other ¦from and ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Special ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Total ¦Income ¦Sources Than ¦Included ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Full Year ¦ ¦Tax Levy ¦The Tax ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Levy ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦40-97¦Interest on Tax ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Anticipation War- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦rants-For the purpose¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦of Pay- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ment of interest on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Tax Antici- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦pation Warrants and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Tax Antici- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦pation Notes as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦follows: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Interest on 1929 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Notes-Dec. 1, 1933 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦to Nov. 30, 1934 ¦$ 25,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Interest on 1932 Tax ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Warrants, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Dec. 1, 1933 to Nov. ¦15,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦30, 1934 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Interest on 1933 Tax ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Warrants, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Dec. 1, 1933 to Nov. ¦25,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦30, 1934 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Interest on 1934 Tax ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Warrants, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦Dec. 1, 1933 to Nov. ¦100,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦30, 1934 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦40-95¦Tax Deficiency Fund ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦12% on Esti- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦ ¦mated Income of ¦204,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦$2,925,000 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦Grand Total ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦Appropriation-County High- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------+-------------+----------+-------------+----------¦
¦way Fund ¦$3,223,667.42¦ ¦$1,523,667.42¦$1,700,000¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Subdivision 6 of section 61 of the Counties Act () prescribes what matters and things relevant to the assets and liabilities must be shown in the annual appropriation bill for Cook county. Among these, there must be set out by classes (1) all current assets and liabilities of each fund of the county as of the commencement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Wilson v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...because the interest has already been provided for in the levy for the fund out of which it is solely payable. In People ex rel. Gill v. Otis, 367 Ill. 136, 10 N.E.2d 672, the itemized calculations of estimated receipts and expenditures in the appropriation bill were carried verbatim into t......
-
People ex rel. Heuer v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
...and the same would be true of every item on the list of appropriations.’ This same sort of objection was overruled in People v. Otis, 367 Ill. 136, 143, 10 N.E.2d 672, but this court has gone further than this in its holdings as to itemization in tax levy ordinances. In Spring Valley Coal C......
-
People ex rel. Toman v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
...levied does to the whole amount appropriated, and the same would be true of every item on the list of appropriations.’ In People v. Otis, 367 Ill. 136, 10 N.E.2d 672, we held that where a Cook county highway corporate levy follows the appropriation ordinance which complies in every respect ......
-
People ex rel. Lindheimer v. Axelrod
...ex rel. Gill v. White, 367 Ill. 415, 11 N.E.2d 809, involved the same levy and reached the same conclusion. People ex rel. Gill v. Otis, 367 Ill. 136, 10 N.E.2d 672, 675, is directly in point. We there considered the 1934 Cook county levy for highway purposes. The appropriation ordinance co......