People ex rel. Moyer v. Hausen

Decision Date21 December 1916
Docket NumberNo. 10956.,10956.
Citation276 Ill. 204,114 N.E. 596
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. MOYER, County Collector, v. HAUSEN et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Lee County Court; John B. Crabtree, Judge.

Application by the People, on the relation of John E. Moyer, County Collector, against Nancy Hausen and others, for judgment for city taxes. From judgment for defendants, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Harry Edwards, State's Atty., and E. E. Wingert, both of Dixon, for appellant.

J. W. Watts and H. A. Brooks, both of Dixon, for appellees.

FARMER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Lee county sustaining objections to the application of the county collector for judgment for city taxes against real estate belonging to a large number of persons. The tax was extended against the property of the objectors on the theory that said property was within the corporate limits of the village of Franklin Grove.

The town of Franklin Grove was incorporated under a special act of the Legislature in 1865 (Priv. Laws 1865, p. 450). Section 3 of said special act provided:

‘Whenever any tract of land adjoining the town of Franklin Grove shall be laid off into town lots, and recorded according to law, the same shall be annexed to and form a part of the town of Franklin Grove.’

July 16, 1872, the town of Franklin Grove voted to organize under the general act for the incorporation of cities and villages. In 1883 Richard A. Canterbury caused land owned by him adjoining the village of Franklin Grove to be platted into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys. The plat was properly acknowledged and recorded and the land was called Canterbury's addition to Franklin Grove. Another addition was surveyed, laid out, and platted of land adjoining the village of Franklin Grove by the owner, Jerome B. Hussey. The plat was acknowledged and recorded and the land called Hussey's addition to the village of Franklin Grove. Two other additions by the owner, Columbus D. Hussey, were surveyed, laid out, and platted in 1898 and 1899, called Hussey's Third and Hussey's Fourth additions to the village of Franklin Grove. A city tax levied by virtue of a city ordinance was extended against the lots in these additions. The owners refused to pay this tax, claiming the property was not in the village of Franklin Grove, and when application was made for judgment objected to the judgment. The objections were sustained, and from the judgment of the county court sustaining the objections and refusing judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

It will be seen that all of the additions to the village of Franklin Grove were laid out and platted after the village had organized under the general incorporation act for cities and villages. The method of annexing territory to a city or village under that act is entirely different from the method provided by the private charter of the town of Franklin Grove. The general act requires a petition of a majority of the legal voters and a majority of the property owners in the territory sought to be annexed and a submission of the question to a vote of the city or village, and in case a majority vote for annexation the city council or board of trustees is required, within 90 days, to annex the territory by ordinance. By section 3 of the private charter of the town of Franklin Grove the mere platting of land adjoining the corporation into lots and recording the plat annexed the property to the village. The principal question involved for decision is whether by organizing under the general act the provision of the special charter with reference to the annexation of territory was repealed or ceased to be effective.

The general act provides (article 1, § 6) that it shall apply to all cities and villages organized under the act, and all laws in conflict...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Portland General Elec. Co. v. City of Estacada
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 5 de março de 1952
    ...showed on its face that it was passed without the consent or application of the owners as required by statute; and People ex rel. v. Hausen, 276 Ill. 204, 114 N.E. 596, in which annexation was attempted pursuant to a charter provision which had been repealed by a general act. Other like cas......
  • Biffer v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 8 de junho de 1917
    ...97 N. E. 672;City of Cairo v. Bross, 101 Ill. 475;Board of Water Com'rs v. People, 137 Ill. 660, 27 N. E. 698. See, also, People v. Hausen, 276 Ill. 204, 114 N. E. 596. Even if the express power is not granted, we think it is clearly within the implied power of the city council of Chicago t......
  • Boise City v. Better Homes
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 4 de abril de 1952
    ...attack the annexation. Idaho Falls v. Grimmett, 63 Idaho 90, 117 P.2d 461; Sharkey v. Butte, 52 Mont. 16, 155 P. 266; People ex rel. v. Hausen, 276 Ill. 204, 114 N.E. 596; McQuillin, 3rd Ed., §§ 7.41, 7.43, 20.19, 20.22; 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 65, At the time of the adoption ......
  • Moore v. Shook
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 de dezembro de 1916
    ... ... People v. Quick, 92 Ill. 580. The judge's minutes on his docket have always been ... ...
  • 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