People ex rel. Reynolds v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.

• Citation: 138 N.E. 135,306 Ill. 529
• Decision Date: 21 February 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14907.,14907.
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. REYNOLDS, County Collector, v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

306 Ill. 529
138 N.E. 135

PEOPLE ex rel. REYNOLDS, County Collector,
v.
CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

No. 14907.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1923.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of George M. Reynolds, County Collector of LaSalle County, for the sale of lands for taxes. From a judgment overruling objections of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, it appeals.

Reversed in part, and remanded.

[138 N.E. 136]

[306 Ill. 530]Appeal from LaSalle County Court; Harry Reck, Judge.
J. A. Connell, R. S. Outlaw, and Edgar R. Hart, all of Chicago, and Boys, Osborn & Griggs, of Streator (E. M. Griggs, of Streator, of counsel), for appellant.

Elmer E. Roberts and H. M. Kelly, both of Ottawa, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

On the application of the county collector to the county court of LaSalle county for judgment and order of sale for taxes levied by the county board at its special meeting in 1921, the appellant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, objected to five items of such taxes. The court sustained an objection to the courthouse and jail fund for installing new furniture and fund for dieting prisoners, stated in a single item of $11,000, and overruled the objections to the other items.

There was a levy of 15 cents on each $100 assessed valuation of property for a county highway tax fund for improving, maintaining, and repairing state-aid roads under[306 Ill. 531]the sixth paragragh of section 25 of the act of 1921 (Laws of 1921, p. 385), purporting to authorize such tax unless additional taxes above the 50-cent rate have been authorized by a vote of the people of the county. The objections filed were that the act was unconstitutional because it attempted to amend the act to revise the law in relation to counties by reference to its title, only; that it discriminated against counties which had voted an additional tax for the same purpose and did not indicate how much of the levy was for roads and how much for bridges. Section 25 as amended is inserted at length in the amendatory act, and the amendment was not by reference to the title, only. The sixth paragraph does not discriminate as between counties or as against counties where the people have voted an additional tax. There is a natural and proper distinction between counties where provision has been made by a vote of the people for the designated purpose and counties where no such provision has been made, authorizing and requiring the classification as necessary to...