People ex rel. Matthews v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1899 |
| Citation | 183 Ill. 311,55 N.E. 682 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MATTHEWS, County Collector, v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Whiteside county court; Henry C. Ward, Judge.
Action by the people, on relation of Luther E. Matthews, county collector, against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, for the collection of taxes. From a judgment for defendant, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Walter Stager, State's Atty., for appellant.
Barge & Barge, for appellee.
The objection of appellee to judgment against its property for an alleged delinquent tax for school and building purposes levied in district No. 1, township 22, range 3, in the town of Fulton, in Whiteside county, was sustained by the county court; and this appeal was taken from the judgment of the court rendered in pursuance of its decision sustaining said objection.
The district was governed by a board of education, which board, at its regular meeting July 6, 1898, made the levy of the tax objected to, by a unanimous vote of the six members present, one being absent. The board then adjourned without making or signing any certificate, and without authorizing any such certificate to be made or returned, as required by the statute. The next day the member who acted as president pro tem. of the meeting, and the secretary, made and returned a certificate of the levy, signing it as such president and secretary of ‘Directors District No. 1,’ etc., instead of ‘Board of Education District No. 1,’ etc. No other action was taken by the board than as above stated.
In support of its objection that there was no valid levy, because no valid certificate was made and filed as required by the statute, appellee gave in evidence the record of the board of education and the certificate. Appellant thereupon proved by the members of the board who were present at the meeting of the board when the levy was made, except one, who had gone out of office, that they would have signed the certificate, had they supposed it was necessary, and that they supposed it would be signed by the president and secretary, and that that would be sufficient; that the use of the term ‘Directors,’ instead of ‘Board of Education,’ in the certificate, was a mere inadvertence, caused by using a printed blank form of certificate. Appellant then moved the court to allow the certificate to be amended and signed by the members of the board, a majority of whom were present and desired to make the amendment, but the court denied the motion. In so deciding, we are of the opinion that no error was committed, for the reason that the certificate was issued by two members of the board after the meeting, and without any authority whatever, and was wholly void, and not amendable on the application for judgment. It is not a case where there was a mere failure to properly enter of record the proceedings of the board, but no action whatever concerning the certificate was taken by the board. If such action had been taken and shown, a different case would have been presented. The mistake in the mere designation of the body might, doubtless, have been corrected, and the certificate might have been signed by the members of the board in accordance with the request made at the trial, had the board made, or authorized the making of, the certificate.
This case is substantially the same, in form and substance, as Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 171...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana, D.&W. Ry. Co. v. People ex rel. Jones
...resolution, and, after being signed by the president and clerk, was returned to the township treasurer. In People v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 183 Ill. 311, 55 N. E. 682, it was said (page 313, 183 Ill., page 683, 55 N. E.): ‘It is not a case where there was a mere failure to prop......
-
Illinois Southern Ry. Co. v. People ex rel. Ebers
...it was an attempt to comply with the law, and such a certificate as might be amended in that regard. People v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 183 Ill. 311, 55 N. E. 682. The exact question here presented does not seem to have been passed upon. In People v. Smith, 149 Ill. 549, 36 N. E.......
-
Benson v. Dempster
... ... of complainants, was in the banking business in Chicago. That John Dempster was a depositor in Benson's bank, and ... ...
-
People ex rel. Williamson v. Cox, s. 14283-14285.
...Ill. 544, 49 N. E. 489;St. Louis, Rock Island & Chicago Railroad Co. v. People, 177 Ill. 78, 52 N. E. 364;People v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 183 Ill. 311, 55 N. E. 682;Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. People, 184 Ill. 240, 56 N. E. 367. The certificate of levy before the ame......