People ex rel. Gleghorn v. Chicago & A.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1913
• Citation: 100 N.E. 502,257 Ill. 208
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. GLEGHORN, County Collector, v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

257 Ill. 208

100 N.E. 502

PEOPLE ex rel. GLEGHORN, County Collector,

v.CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1912.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1913.

Appeal from Grundy County Court; George Bedford, Judge.

Action by the People, on relation of A. H. Gleghorn, County Collector of Grundy County, against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. L. O'Donnell, T. F. Donovan, and J. A. Bray, all of Joliet (Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

C. F. Hanson, State's Atty., and H. B. Smith, both of Morris, for appellee.

VICKERS, J.

At the June term, 1912, the county collector of Grundy county made application to the county court for judgment for delinquent taxes for the year 1911. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company filed objections to a portion of the school tax in school district No. 80, to a portion of the school tax in district No. 72, to the city taxes levied against its property in Coal City, and to the additional road and bridge tax in the towns of Felix and Braceville. The objection was sustained to a part of the school tax of district No. 80 and overruled as to the balance. All other objections were overruled, and judgment was entered against the railroad company for the several amounts shown to be due. The railroad company deposited the amount of the taxes with the county treasurer, as required by the statute, and brings the record to this court by appeal.

[1] Objections to the road and bridge tax of the two towns named involve a construction of section 14 of the Road and Bridge Law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 121) as amended in 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 499). An additional tax of 25 cents was levied in each of these townships, with the consent of the board of town auditors and the assessor, under certificates as follows: In the town of Felix the certificate stated that the additional tax was required for ‘building new abutments on canal bridge, on north and south road between sections 34 and 35, and grading part of road on north and south road between sections 37 and 28; said abutment and part of road being washed out in spring, 1911.’ In the town of Braceville the certificate stated that the additional rate was required for ‘repairing and grading roads and cleaning out ditches.’ Under the holding of this court in People v. De Kalb & Great Western Railroad Co., 100 N. E. 242, and People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railroad Co., 100 N. E. 241, these certificates were sufficient, and the objection to the additional road and bridge tax was properly overruled.

In school district No. 80 there was levied for educational purposes $4,000 and for building purposes the sum of $1,200. The total valuation of property in the district was $210,971 and the valuation of the appellant's property $36,094. The total school tax levied was at the rate of $2.55 on the $100. In school district No. 72 $5,000 was levied for educational purposes and $1,000 for building purposes. The valuation of property in this district was $278,300 and appellant's property was valued at $44,424. The school tax was extended at the rate of $1.87 on the $100. The objection to these levies goes only to a part of the amount levied for building purposes. The evidence shows that no school building was erected in either of said school districts, nor was the erection of any such building begun or contemplated during the year for which these taxes were levied. Appellant's contention is that the building tax in these districts is a mere subterfuge, by means of which school authorities can exceed the limit fixed by the statute for general educational purposes.

[2] Section 189 of the present School Law (Hurd's Stat. 1911, p. 2117), provides that school authorities, for the purpose of establishing and supporting free schools not less than six nor more than nine months in each year and defraying the expenses of the same of every description, may levy taxes not to exceed 1 1/2 per cent. for building purposes, the valuation of the property to be ascertained by the last assessment for state and county taxes. There is a proviso in said section that permits obligations incurred or expenditures made ‘for the improvement, repair or benefit of the school buildings and property’ to be paid out of taxes levied ‘for building purposes.’ This proviso was added in 1907. Laws 1907, p. 519. Prior to this amendment this court held that taxes levied for ‘building purposes' could only be used to pay for the building of a schoolhouse or to create a fund to meet bonds issued for that purpose. O'Day v. People, 171 Ill. 293, 49 N. E. 504;Wabash Railroad Co. v. People, 187 Ill. 289, 58 N. E. 254. Prior to the amendment of 1907, under the statute as construed by this court, repairs and other expenses for the up-keep of school property were payable only out of the educational fund. The amendment allowing expenses ‘for the improvement, repair or benefit of the school buildings and property’ to be paid out of the building fund has the effect of transferring those items of expense from the educational fund to the building fund, and...