People ex rel. Salm v. Crear

• Decision Date: 22 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 14197.,14197.
• Citation: 133 N.E. 287,300 Ill. 611
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SALM, County Collector, v. CREAR et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

300 Ill. 611

133 N.E. 287

PEOPLE ex rel. SALM, County Collector,

v.CREAR et al.

No. 14197.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1921.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Fred Salm, Jr., County Collector, against Anna Crear and others. From a judgment for the Collector, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Hancock County Court, Warren H. Orr, Judge.

Scofield, Califf & Bell and Hartzell, Cavanagh, Martin & Hartzell, all of Carthage, for appellants.

Lee Siebenborn, State's Atty., of Carthage, and O'Harras, Wood & Walker, of Hamilton, for appellee.

THOMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Hancock county overruling objections of appellants to taxes levied by community consolidated school district No. 305, rendering judgment therefor, and entering an order of sale against the property of appellants.

Community consolidated school district No. 305 comprises the territory formerly embraced within common school districts Nos. 222, 223, 224, and 225 of Hancock county. The village of West Point, with a population of about 300 is located in what was formerly district No. 225. At the time of the consolidation there were schoolhouses in all these districts except No. 225 and these buildings are still standing. In the winter of 1919 the schoolhouse in district No. 225 burned, and the village school has since been maintained in rented rooms. The consolidation was effected in the spring of 1920. Pursuant to a petition duly filed with the board of education for the consolidated district, the board on June 21, 1920, passed a resolution calling a special election to locate a schoolhouse site and to authorize the board of education to purchase said site and to build a school house thereon and to issue bonds of the community consolidated school district to the amount of $32,000. The election was held Saturday, July 3, 1920, and all of said propositions received the approval of the voters. At the meeting of the board of education held the following Monday the board decided to purchase the building site, to issue the bonds, and to build the schoolhouse. The secretary was directed to consult an architect and have plans prepared for the new building. July 31, 1920, the board of education levied $6,400 for educational purposes and $6,400 for building purposes. March 21, 1921, an architect appeared before the board pursuant to its invitation, and he was employed to prepare plans for the new school building and was directed to advertise for bids for the erection of the building. May 9, 1921, an offer was made to purchase the bonds at par, and the board accepted the offer. Ten days later the architect and a number of building contractors met with the board and submitted bids. These bids were opened, but the contract was not let. July 14, 1920, certain objectors filed a bill seeking to enjoin the issuance of the bonds and the purchase of the schoolhouse site and the erection of the school building. In October, 1920, certain objectors filed a petition in the circuit court of Hancock county for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto for the purpose of testing the legality of the organization of said district. Both of these proceedings are still pending. This litigation has prevented the sale of the bonds and the erection of the new school building. The school treasurer had in his hands about $9,000 belonging to the four districts which now comprise the community consolidated school district, but he refused to pay out this money on the orders of the board of education of the community consolidated school district until the legality of the organization had been determined. Of this $9,000, $5,000 was received as insurance on the West Point school building when it burned.

It is first contended by the objectors that the $6,400 levied for building purposes was unauthorized because no building was in process of construction, and because the board of education was restricted to the $32,000 bond issue for the building of the new schoolhouse. In support of the first reason they cite Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. People, 208 Ill. 9, 69 N. E. 832, and insist that it is decisive of the question. In that case it was shown that the intention of the board of directors was to use the fund levied for building purposes to erect a schoolhouse, the erection of which the board then had in contemplation but had not fully agreed upon. In discussing this point this court said:

‘We think it clear the board of directors of a school district cannot levy a tax for ‘building purposes' with a view to accumulate a fund to be used at some time in the future, with which to build a schoolhouse, the erection of which they have in contemplation but which they have not decided to build at the time the tax levy is made; and which has an existence only in the minds of the * * * members of the board of directors at the time of the tax levy.’

This is undoubtedly the law, but it does not follow that the building must actually be in the process of crection at the time the levy is made. In the case at bar the voters had located a building site and had authorized the board to purchase the site and erect a building. The board had instructed its secretary to consult an architect and had definitely determined to erect the building. Following the levy plans were prepared and bids advertised for and received. It was the duty of the board of education...