People ex rel. Holmquist v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date15 December 1908
Citation237 Ill. 324,86 N.E. 724
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. HOLMQUIST, County Collector, v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Winnebago County Court; Louis M. Reckhow, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Holmquist, county collector, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company to enforce taxes. From a judgment sustaining objections to certain items of taxes, the People appeal. Reversed in part and remanded, with directions.

Harry B. North, State's Atty., for appellant.

R. K. Welsh, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Winnebago county sustaining objections to certain items of taxes levied against the lands of appellee, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, for county purposes for the year 1907. Upon application being made by the county collector of said county for judgment, appellee filed objectionsto the county tax to the extent of $769.54, being the amount levied upon objector's property for the following items: For salaries county officers, deputies, and clerks, $20,000; for pauper accounts and poor master, $5,500; for almshouse and farm, $6,500; for courthouse and jail, $5,000; for jury certificates and witness fees, $3,000; for printing and stationery, $6,000; for incidentals, $1,000. The court sustained the objections to the taxes for all of the above items except that for ‘almshouse and farm,’ and overruled the objection to that item and entered a judgment against appellee for $106.96, the amount of the tax extended against appellant under said levy for ‘almshouse and farm.’ From the judgment sustaining the objections to the other items the case is brought to this court by appeal.

Questions similar in character to those here involved have frequently been before this court. The statute under which the county board gets its authority for levying taxes for county purposes provides that, when a levy is made for several purposes, ‘the amount for each purpose shall be stated separately,’ and the county court held that the sums levied as to which objections were sustained were invalid for the reason that the purposes for which they were levied were not stated separately, as required by statute. We are of opinion the objections should have been overruled as to the items ‘for salaries county officers, deputies and clerks, $20,000,’ ‘for incidentals, $1,000,’ for ‘jury certificates and witness fees, $3,000,’ and for ‘printing and stationery, $6,000.’ The tax for ‘salaries county officers, deputies, and clerks' we must assume was levied for the purpose of providing money to make such payments to county officers, deputies, and clerks as the law authorizes to be made out of the county treasury, and we are of opinion the statute does not require a separation of this item. In People v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co., 231 Ill. 498, 83 N. E. 113, we held a levy for county purposes of $6,000 ‘for contingent’ was not in compliance with the requirements of the statute. In that case the amount of the levy, as will be seen from the opinion, was an important element in determining the invalidity of the levy. It has never been held that the fact that a levy was made for ‘incidentals' or ‘contingent’ expenses rendered the levy invalid. In the nature of things the levy for such purposes should always be small, and municipalities will not be permitted to levy large sums under such designation. It may be that the authorities are unable to anticipate every expense the county may lawfully incur and provide taxes to meet it by a particular designation in the levy, and in our opinion it is not a violation of the statute to levy small sums for that purpose. In this case the court will take judicial notice of the fact that Winnebago county is a large and populous county, and $1,000...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People ex rel. Goodman v. Wabash R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1947
    ...designation. People ex rel. Williamson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 253 Ill. 100, 97 N.E. 245;People ex rel. Holmquist v. Illinois Central R. Co., 237 Ill. 324, 86 N.E. 724. Applying these rules and testing the validity of the levy by the facts existing at the time the levy was m......
  • Peabody v. Russel
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 22 Febrero 1922
    ...expenses have in effect been held constitutional under the provisions of the statute in such cases as People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 237 Ill. 324, 86 N. E. 724,People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 247 Ill. 360, 93 N. E. 405, and People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy ......
  • People ex rel. Williamson v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1912
    ...of said amounts levied for ‘contingent expenses' was excessive for the purpose for which the levy was made. In People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 237 Ill. 324, 86 N. E. 724, it was said the court would take judicial notice of the size and population of the municipality making the tax ......
  • People ex rel. Hempen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 13 Mayo 1942
    ...we can take judicial knowledge that supplies used in all county offices almost defy specification. In People ex rel. Holmquist v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 237 Ill. 324, 86 N.E. 724, we held that a county levy for incidentals was sufficiently specific. This objection was properly overr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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