People ex rel. Smith v. Hassler

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Citation: 104 N.E. 177,262 Ill. 133
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH, County Collector, v. HASSLER et al.
• Decision Date: 21 February 1914

262 Ill. 133
104 N.E. 177

PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH, County Collector,
v.
HASSLER et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1914.

Appeal from Bureau County Court; J. R. Prichard, Judge.

Application by the People, on the relation of Harry R. Smith, County Collector, against Marie Hassler and others for judgment for delinquent taxes. From a judgment for applicant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company appeals. Affirmed.

[262 Ill. 133]Cairo A. Trimble, of Princeton, and Perry D. Trimble, of Indianapolis, Ind. (M. L. Bell, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

C. N. Hollerich, State's Atty., of Spring Valley (J. L. Spaulding, of Princeton, of counsel), for appellee.

CARTER, J.

This was an application in the county court of Bureau county for judgment

[104 N.E. 178]

for delinquent taxes for 1912 against certain lands, including the property of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. On a hearing the county court overruled the objections of the said company, [262 Ill. 134]and entered judgment against its property for $553.44. The company then deposited the necessary amount of money for said taxes, and prayed and was allowed this appeal.

The delinquent tax is a portion of the school tax for school district No. 143, in Mineral township, in the said county. The board of directors of said district certified to the county clerk on July 24, 1912, that they required $2,000 as special taxes for educational purposes and $3,200 for building purposes. The county clerk extended under said levy $2,035.70 for educational purposes and $2,348.88 for building purposes. In its objections filed to the said tax the railway company stated that said directors ‘expended no money whatever during the year 1912, nor up to the date of said objections, for building purposes, nor did said directors, at the time they made said purported levy, intend to spend any money for said building purposes, but the said levy was illegally made for the purpose of raising money for educational purposes in excess of the rate and amount fixed and allowed by law.’

The evidence shows quite plainly that the district did not need the full amount levied for building purposes; but it is not equally clear as to just how much it did need for such purpose. It appears that the district paid out during the year, for educational purposes, an amount largely in excess of the levy for such purpose. There is a controversy, however, as to whether $517.50 paid to C. A. Cole and $414 paid to Mary Bryan should be considered as for educational or for building purposes. The books of the school treasurer showed that such amounts were paid for building purposes, while the warrants upon which these amounts were paid indicated that they were drawn for money to pay teachers. The wording of the objection would indicate that the railway company did not think that there should have been any levy made for building purposes, and most of the argument of counsel in the original brief is along that line. There would have been justification[262 Ill. 135]for this contention under the School Law as it existed prior to 1907. The law was then amended so that whatever is needed for ‘the improvement, repair or benefit of the school buildings and property’ may be included in the levy for building purposes. People v....