People ex rel. Harding v. Morris

Decision Date21 February 1930
Docket NumberNo. 19641.,19641.
Citation338 Ill. 335,170 N.E. 216
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. HARDING, County Collector, v. MORRIS et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court


Application by the People, on the relation of George F. Harding, County Collector, for a tax judgment, to which Claude W. Morris and another filed objections. From the judgment rendered, the objectors appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Cook County Court; John D. Biggs, Judge.

Austin L. Wyman, of Chicago, for appellants.

John A. Swanson, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Louis H. Geiman, James F. Clancy, E. Clark Davis, and Hayden N. Bell, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.


In this case an opinion was filed and a judgment rendered at the October term, 1929, reversing the judgment of the county court of Cook county. A petition for a rehearingwas filed in accordance with the rules of the court, and by agreement of the parties at the December term a rehearing was granted. On motion of the appellants suggesting a diminution of the record, leave was given to supply the omitted part, and the cause was again submitted.

The case was an application by the county collector for judgment for the taxes of 1927 against certain real estate at No. 25 East Delaware place, in Chicago, to which objections were filed by Claude W. Morris and the 25 East Delaware Building Corporation. On August 3, 1928, a general order of sale was entered against the property, against which judgment was asked, excepting ‘against lands and lots as to which this court has not entered judgment and order of sale for any reason, as shown in the judgments and orders of this court herein and as indicated by appropriate entries in the tax, judgment, sale, redemption and forfeiture record herein.’ That judgment was not entered against the property involved in this case was indicated by the entry on page 99 of volume 112 of the tax, judgment, sale, redemption, and forfeiture record of the notation opposite the description of the property involved, ‘Obj. 2502’; this objection being a designation of the case in the county court. On October 4, 1928, an order was entered nunc pro tunc as of August 3, 1928, finding no assessment on the property and refusing judgment. A motion of the county treasurer to vacate this order was made, and on October 8 an order was entered vacating the order refusing judgment. An amendment to objections filed November 17, 1928, added an additional objection, and on January 23, 1929, an order was entered sustaining objections in part and refusing judgment for all over $150,000, full assessed value, on improvements. An appeal was prayed by the objectors, which was allowed and has been perfected.

The original objection of the appellants was, as set forth in the abstract, ‘on the ground of fraud, mistake, excessive and illegalvaluations, and upon specific objection alleging universal custom not to assess at any value buildings under construction which were not under roof on April 1 of the taxable year.’ The amendment to objections filed November 17, 1928, set out in the abstract as an additional objection ‘that assessment for $400,000 as the value of improvements on the premises was an original assessment by the board of review of Cook county, Illinois, without notice to the objectors or any other proper person, as required by law.’

We may take notice that thousands of objections are filed to the collector's application for judgment against lands and lots for taxes in the county court of Cook county each year, and that under the practice in that court a general judgment is entered, after the time for filing objections has expired, against all lands and lots for which no objections have been filed, reserving the question of the determination of objections which have been filed until a later date, and that in such cases in which objections have been reserved the court renders separate judgments as the cases are heard and disposed of in the orderly course of its business. Each case of objections to taxes is a separate case, and the judgment against each tract is a separate judgment. When the general judgment is rendered, it is final as to all property included in the judgment, and, after the expiration of the term, the court has no jurisdiction to permit an amendment of the proceedings. All cases in which objections have been filed and judgment has not been rendered continue to be pending on the docket for hearing. They are not affected by the order for a general judgment against property for which objections have not been filed.

The rule in regard to amendments is the same as in any other pending case, and the court may, in its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People ex rel. Sweitzer v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1936
    ...upon notice. His recollection was not based upon a menorandum, memorial, or note made when the judgment was entered. People v. Morris, 338 Ill. 335, 170 N.E. 216, is not contrary to this conclusion. In that case, we held that a general judgment against all lands for which objections have no......
  • People ex rel. Pickerill v. New York Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1945
    ...than those of the Civil Practice Act govern the procedure in connection with appeals from judgments for taxes. People ex rel. Harding v. Morris, 338 Ill. 335, 170 N.E. 216;People ex rel. Hudson v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 360 Ill. 180, 195 N.E. 631. The point,......
  • People ex rel. Schlaeger v. Ridge Country Club
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1947
    ...N.E.2d 405;People ex rel. Hudson v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., 360 Ill. 180, 195 N.E. 631;People ex rel. Harding v. Morris, 338 Ill. 335, 170 N.E. 216. The hearing provided for in the first paragraph of section 235 (par. 716) directs that the court shall examine the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT