People ex rel. Price v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1905 |
| Citation | 219 Ill. 94,76 N.E. 80 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. PRICE v. WISCONSIN CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Lake County Court; D. L. Jones, Judge.
Application by the people, on the relation of Lewis C. Price, county treasurer, for a judgment and order of sale against the property of the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company for a county tax levied on such property. From a judgment refusing the application, relator appeals. Reversed.
Leslie P. Hanna, State's Atty. (Benjamin H. Miller, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles Whitney, for appellee.
At the June term, 1905, the county court of Lake county refused the application of the county collector of said county for a judgment against the property of appellee for a county tax levied on said property, and from that judgment this appeal was prosecuted. At the September session, 1904, the county board attempted to levy a county tax of 75 cents on each $100 of taxable property according to its assessed valuation, and did not specify the particular purposes for which the tax was levied. Such a levy was not authorized by the statute, and the tax was vitiated by the failure to comply with the law. Cincinnati, I. & W. Ry. Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 197, 72 N. E. 774;Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 458, 72 N. E. 1105. On February 28, 1905, the Legislature passed an act for the purpose of curing the defect in levies which existed in this and other like cases. Laws 1905, p. 359. That act was in force from and after its passage, and the only question in this case is whether it cured the defect. If it was within the power of the Legislature to pass the act, the defect was thereby cured, and the tax validated.
There is no prohibition in our Constitution against the passage of retroactive statutes, and they are not invalid if they do not impair vested rights, or come in conflict with some provision of the Constitution. The general rule is that, where there is no constitutional prohibition, the Legislature may validate, by a curative act, any proceedings which they might have authorized in advance. 8 Cyc. 1083; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 609. Cases where the power to levy taxes has failed of proper execution through the carelessness of officers or other cause come within that rule. Cooley, Const. Lim. (4th Ed.) 462; Cooley on Taxation, 229. But while curative acts may heal irregularities, they cannot cure the want of authority to act at all, and the Legislature cannot, by retrospective legislation, confirm what it could not originally have authorized. On that ground, it is contended by appellee that the curative act of 1905 is invalid. It is urged that the Legislature could not have authorized such a levy as was made, because it would be in conflict with section 8, art. 9, of the Constitution, which provides: ‘County authorities shall never assess taxes, the aggregate of which shall exceed seventy-five cents per $100 valuation, except for the payment of indebtedness existing at the adoption of this Constitution, unless authorized by a vote of the people of the county.’ The argument is based on the use of the word ‘aggregate,’ as showing an intent that the county authorities shall specify the particular purposes to which the money, when collected, shall be appropriated, and that the aggregate shall not exceed the rate specified. We are not prepared to say that the construction contended for should be given to the Constitution, but are of the opinion that the provision was intended merely as a limitation upon the power of county authorities to levy taxes.
The next question is whether the curative act interferes with or destroys any constitutional right of the taxpayer. It is the right of the taxpayer to have an opportunity to be heard before a tax shall be finally adjudged against him, and no tax can be valid without an opportunity for such a hearing. Therefore, it was decided in March v. Chesnut, 14 Ill. 223, that the Legislature could not cure by subsequent legislation the failure of an assessor to complete the assessment, and return it to a particular place on or before a certain day. The provision for such a return was to enable the taxpayer to inspect the assessment, and to give him time and opportunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welborn v. Whitney
... ... Co. v. Ervin, 157 Wash. 649, 290 P. 221; ... People v. Bloom, 193 N.Y. 1, 85 N.E. 824, 18 L.R.A., ... N.S., ... or propriety, exactly, fittingly, properly' (Cent ... Dict.). In Morrison v. Wells, 48 Kan. 494, 29 P ... authority to act at all. People v. Wisconsin Cent ... Railroad Co., 219 Ill. 94, 76 N.E. 80. 'A tax ... Price v. Mahoney, 175 Okl. 355, 53 P.2d 257, as ... follows: ... ...
-
People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Stitt
...legislative action.’ People v. City of Rock Island, 271 Ill. 412, 111 N. E. 291. See, also, on this question, People v. Wisconsin Central Railroad Co., 219 Ill. 94, 76 N. E. 80; 8 Cyc. 765; 1 Kent's Com. (14th Ed.) 545, 546. This doctrine as to curative statutes applies as well to laws that......
-
People ex rel. Cnty. Collector of Ogle Cnty. v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
...of the Legislature to validate by a curative act any proceeding which it might have authorized in advance. People v. Wisconsin Central Railroad Co., 219 Ill. 94, 76 N. E. 80;People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 301 Ill. 288, 133 N. E. 779;People v. Sandberg Co., 282 Ill. 245, 118 N. E. ......
-
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. WILL CTY. COLLECTOR
...by the legislature that it should operate retrospectively. Carr, 316 Ill. at 415, 147 N.E. at 494. In People ex rel. Price v. Wisconsin Central R.R. Co., 219 Ill. 94, 76 N.E. 80 (1905), Lake County levied a tax but failed to indicate the precise purposes for which the taxes were levied as r......