People ex rel. Johnson v. De Kalb & G.W.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1912
• Citation: 256 Ill. 290,100 N.E. 242
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. JOHNSON, County Collector, v. DE KALB & G. W. R. CO.

256 Ill. 290

100 N.E. 242

PEOPLE ex rel. JOHNSON, County Collector,

v.DE KALB & G. W. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1912.

Appeal from De Kalb County Court; William L. Pond, Judge.

Action by the People, on relation of Edward Johnson, County Collector, against the De Kalb & Great Western Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Faissler & Fulton, of Sycamore, for appellant.

Edward M. Burst, State's Atty., of Sycamore (H. T. Smith, of Sycamore, of counsel), for appellee.

VICKERS, J.

This is an application by the county collector of De Kalb county, in the county court of said county, for judgment and order of sale for certain delinquent taxes for the year 1911. The De Kalb & Great Western Railroad Company appeared and filed objections to a portion of the road and bridge taxes levied in the townships of Cortland and De Kalb, and against a tax levied in the cities of Sycamore and De Kalb for the benefit of a hospital fund in those cities, respectively.

[1] The objection made to that part of the road and bridge taxes in excess of 36 cents on the $100 in the two townships named raises but a single question, and that is the sufficiency of the certificates of the highway commissioners under section 14 of the Road Law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 121), as amended in 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 499). The certificate for Cortland township stated ‘that, by reason of the fact that we intend the coming year to place upon the public roads of said town a large quantity of washed gravel or crushed rock, a greater levy is needed than can be provided for by a rate of 36 cents on each $100 valuation.’ The board of town auditors and the assessor consented in writing to an additional levy of 20 cents on each $100 valuation, in which said consent the language quoted from the certificate of the highway commissioners was repeated. In De Kalb township the highway commissioners certified ‘that by reason of the regular levy, as provided in section 13 of the Road and Bridge Act, being insufficient to properly improve the roads now laid out, a greater levy is needed than can be provided for by a rate of 36 cents on each $100 valuation.’ The board of town auditors and the assessor of said De Kalb township filed a written consent to the levy of an additional 15 cents on each $100 valuation, and stated the same reason that was given in the certificates of the highway commissioners. The objection to the additional levies is that section 14 of the Road and Bridge Act does not authorize an additional levy for the ordinary and usual purposes for which taxes might be levied under other sections of the statute, and particularly under section 13.

Section 14, prior to the amendment of 1911, provided that, if in the opinion of the commissioners a greater levy is needed in view of some contingency, they may certify, etc. Under this statute numerous cases were presented to this court in which we were called upon to determine the sufficiency of certificates in respect to the statement of the ‘contingency’ contemplated by said section. It was found difficult to establish a clear and workable rule which would enable the highway commissioners to determine whether a given necessity for an additional tax constituted a ‘contingency,’ within the meaning of section 14. In the greater number of cases that came before this court, where it was sought to raise an additional road fund ‘in view of some contingency,’ the objection to the additional tax was sustained, for the reason that the supposed contingency was most usually a mere necessity for more funds for the usual and ordinary purposes of the road district. In 1911 the Legislature amended section 14 by striking out the words ‘in view of some contingency,’ and added after the word ‘assessor,’ in the third line, ‘the reason therefor.’

In view of the construction placed upon the statute by this court prior to this amendment, we are of the opinion that the Legislature, by the amendment of 1911, intended to confer upon highway commissioners the power to levy an additional tax, not exceeding 25 cents on the $100, by procuring the consent of the board of town auditors and the assessor thereto, for any purpose for which taxes might be levied under section 13; the only condition being that the certificate should state ‘the reason therefor.’ The limitation in section 13 of 36 cents on the $100 continues and will control, unless the consent of the board of town auditors and the assessor is obtained for an additional levy, not exceeding 25 cents. The meaning of sections 13 and 14 as they now stand may be stated in one sentence, as follows: The board of highway commissioners may levy a tax upon the property of the town for road and bridge purposes and for the payment of outstanding orders drawn by them on their treasurer, not exceeding 36 cents on the $100, provided an additional levy, not exceeding 25 cents on the $100, may be levied by and with the consent of the board of town auditors and...