People ex rel. Rogers v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 9727.,9727. |
| Citation | 107 N.E. 222,266 Ill. 196 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. ROGERS, County Collector, v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Morgan County Court; Paul F. Grote, Judge.
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Walter B. Rogers, County Collector, against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. From a judgment sustaining objections to alleged delinquent taxes, the collector appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Robert Tilton, State's Atty., and Thomas F. Smith, both of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Joseph A. Connell and William D. Barge, both of Chicago (Chester M. Dawes, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This was a proceeding in the county court of Morgan county to obtain judgment against the lands of appellee for taxes of 1913 alleged to be delinquent. Objections were filed by appellee to that portion of the county tax levied to raise money for state aid roads, and also to that portion of said tax levied for the repair, care, support, and maintenance of the courthouse and jail. The county court sustainedobjections to all these taxes, and this appeal was perfected on behalf of the appellant.
The objection to the tax levy for state aid roads is identical with that which we considered in People v. Kankakee & Seneca Railroad Co. (No. 9756) 107 N. E. 218. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the county court erred in sustaining the objections to this tax.
The items as to the county tax for courthouse and jail for the year 1913 read, respectively, as follows:
‘For repairs upon, and care, support, and maintenance of, the courthouse, $4,000.’ ‘For repairs upon, and care, support, and maintenance of, the county jail, $3,500.’
The county court sustained objections to the taxes levied against appellee's property under these two items, on the ground that neither of them is sufficiently specific to comply with section 121 of the Revenue Law. That section requires that, when the tax is levied for several purposes, ‘the amount for each purpose shall be stated separately.’ It is neither necessary nor practicable that each particular claim for which the tax is levied shall be specifically stated. The statute should receive a reasonable, common-sense construction. People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 237 Ill. 312, 86 N. E. 721;People v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co., 231 Ill. 498, 83 N. E. 113. There is no valid objection to levying a gross sum for several different purposes, where the several purposes are properly embraced within some general designation. People v. Bowman, 253 Ill. 234, 97 N. E. 304. The object of stating in the levy the amount for each purpose separately is to give the taxpayer an opportunity to present objections to the levy of an unjust assessment. No fixed rule can be laid down as to just how many separate subdivisions or heads a given tax levy should be divided into. Each case must, in some measure, be decided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Winkler v. Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co.
...& Quincy Railroad Co., 306 Ill. 529, 138 N. E. 135;People v. Irvin, 325 Ill. 497, 156 N. E. 292. In People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 266 Ill. 196, 107 N. E. 222, the item was for repairs, care, support, and maintenance of the courthose, $4,000, and it was held to be suff......
-
People ex rel. Smith v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...336 Ill. 506, 168 N.E. 294. The decision in the Jackson case misapplied the holding of this court in People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 266 Ill. 196, 107 N.E. 222. In this latter case the holding was an item in the levy, ‘For repairs upon, and care, support, and maintenanc......
-
People ex rel. Dale v. Jackson
...construction. People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 237 Ill. 312, 86 N. E. 721. In People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 266 Ill. 196, 107 N. E. 222, an item ‘for repairs upon and care, support, and maintenance of courthouse, $4,000,’ was objected to on the ground......
-
People ex rel. Witte v. Franklin
...is sufficiently designated to comply with the law. People v. Jackson, 272 Ill. 494, 112 N. E. 344;People v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 266 Ill. 196, 107 N. E. 222. [7] The objection to item (b) is also that it is too indefinite, and, further, because it levies a tax for both......