People Ex Rel. Joseph Ream v. Dragstran
| Decision Date | 30 September 1881 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE ex rel. Joseph Ream, Collector,v.R. DRAGSTRAN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Logan county; the Hon. STEPHEN H. FOLEY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. SCHOLES & MATHER, for the appellant:
It is contended that the application should have been made at the May term of the county court, and that application at any subsequent term was unauthorized. That such is not the law, see sec. 185 of the Revenue act, and Beers et al. v. People ex rel. 83 Ill. 490.
It is also insisted that because of the continuance of the application beyond the day of sale named in the collector's notice, the application was discontinued. This objection is answered by sec. 193, Revenue act, Sess. Laws, 1879, p. 249.
The appearance of the party cured all defects, if any, in the notice. People ex rel. v. Sherman, 83 Ill. 165.
The objection that the collector's delinquent list did not set forth the valuation upon which the special tax was extended, as required by sec. 188 of the Revenue act, should have been made in the court below, so as to have afforded an opportunity to obviate the same by amendment. Walsh v. People, 79 Ill. 521; Law et al. v. People ex rel. 87 Id. 385.
We think, also, that this omission is cured by sec. 191 of the Revenue law. This court has frequently construed this provision as curing all irregularities, defects and omissions. Thatcher v. People, 79 Ill. 597; Hale v. People ex rel. 87 Id. 72.
Mr. J. T. HOBLITT, and Messrs. BEASON & BLINN, for the appellees, contended that the judgment below, refusing to render judgment, should be affirmed for the following reasons:
1. Because said application was made at the September term of the county court, and not at the May term, as required by sec. 185, chap. 120, Underwood's Stat. of 1878; Leindecker v. The People ex rel. 98 Ill. 21.
2. Because the collector, in giving notice that he would sell on Monday, September 27, 1880, any property against which judgment and order of sale should be made, rendered it impossible for the court, under the statute, to render a valid judgment and order of sale. Sections 182, 185, 191, chap. 120, Underwood's Stat. of 1878.
3. Because the collector, in his delinquent list and application for judgment, did not set forth the proper description of the land or lot, the year or years for which the alleged tax was due, and the valuation on which the tax was extended, as required by law. See sec. 188, p. 188, laws of 1879; Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 279; Morgan v. Camp, 16 Id. 176; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Id. 108; Fox v. Turtle, 55 Id. 377.
4. Because no judgment for taxes could be rendered in the absence of definite and certain descriptions of lands against which judgment was sought, in the delinquent list and application for judgment. Olcott et al. v. The State, 5 Gilm. 481; Hughes v. Streeter, 24 Ill. 650; Meyer v. Pfeifer, 50 Id. 485; People ex rel. v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. 96 Id. 369; Burroughs on Taxation, pp. 205, 208; Cooley on Taxation, pp. 282, 286.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Logan county against the People, on an application by the county treasurer of that county, for judgment against the lands of the appellees for the payment of a delinquent special tax.
We shall notice but one of the several objections urged against the application.
In the delinquent list filed in the county court by the collector, and in the notice published by him of his intention to apply for judgment, the delinquent lands are thus described:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦NAME OF ¦Part of ¦Lot,¦Block,¦Special ¦ ¦Amt. ¦ ¦Total ¦
¦OWNER. ¦section or ¦Sec.¦acres.¦town ¦Interest.¦of ¦Costs.¦amt. ¦
¦ ¦subdivision. ¦ ¦ ¦tax. ¦ ¦tax. ¦ ¦due. ¦
+----------+--------------+----+------+--------+---------+-----+------+-------¦
¦R. ¦N 1/2 N E ¦1 ¦82.71 ¦$47 09 ¦.94 ¦$48 ¦.67 ¦$48 70 ¦
¦Dragstran_¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦03 ¦ ¦ ¦
+----------+--------------+----+------+--------+---------+-----+------+-------¦
¦J. S. ¦S 1/2 N E ¦1 ¦82.73 ¦40 52 ¦.81 ¦41 33¦.67 ¦42 00 ¦
¦Atchinson.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Section 188 of the Revenue act of 1872, as amended by the act in force July 1, 1879, requires that the delinquent list shall, among other things, set forth the description of the land or lot against which the delinquent tax is charged; and section 182 of the Revenue act of 1872 requires that such delinquent list shall be published, etc. The judgment to be rendered “shall be considered as a several judgment against each tract or lot, or part of tract or lot, for each kind of tax or special assessment included therein;” and the court is required to “direct the clerk to make out and enter an order for the sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. D. R. G., Inc.
...of sale by the county collector. People ex rel. Thaxton v. Coal Belt Electric Ry. Co., 311 Ill. 29, 142 N.E. 495; People ex rel. Ream v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286. With regard to the real estate here involved, judgment and order of sale were entered in May 1969 on application of the county co......
-
People ex rel. Rice v. McKinnie
...& Pfitzenmeyer's East Park addition to Le Roy. The omission of the words ‘East Park’ did not bring the case within the rule of People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286,People v. Eggers, 164 Ill. 515, 45 N. E. 1074,Nicholes v. People, 165 Ill. 502, 46 N. E. 237, or Hook v. People, 177 Ill. 632, 52 ......
-
People ex rel. Carr v. Omega Chapter of PSI Upsilon Fraternity
...75 N. E. 117, 216 Ill. 377;McChesney v. City of Chicago, 37 N. E. 872, 151 Ill. 307;Wiggins Ferry Co. v. People, 101 Ill. 446;People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286. Nor is there any merit in the contention of appellee that appellant is estopped from urging its objection here. The objection goes......
-
Koelling v. People ex rel. Raymond
...county court refusing the application of the collector was affirmed. People v. Chicago cago & A. R. Co., 96 Ill. 369. Again, in People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286, lands were described as in section 1, Logan county, giving no township or range. The land was located as being in some section 1......