People ex rel. Stuckart v. Day
| Decision Date | 21 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 11561.,11561. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STUCKART, County Collector, v. DAY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; John H. Williams. Judge.
Proceedings by the People, on the relation of Henry Stuckart, County Collector, against Mark L. Day. From the judgment, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, for appellant.
Church, Shepard & Day, of Chicago (Frank L. Shepard and R. N. Holt, both of Chicago, of counsel), for apellee.
The appellee, Mark L. Day, appealed from a judgment of the county court of Cook county against his property for taxes levied for the year 1915. The errors assigned were considered and were overruled as to various taxes and sustained as to others. The cause was remanded to the county court, with directions to sustain objections and deny judgment as to all taxes held invalid in the opinion filed and to ascertain what portion of the county tax was levied to pay any charge upon the county imposed by law without the action of the board of commissioners, including fixed salaries of officers required by law to be paid from the county treasury and to pay jurors' fees and other charges fixed by law, according to the rules stated in the opinion, and to overrule objections to such taxes. People v. Day, 277 Ill. 543, 115 N. E. 732. The cause was reinstated in the county court, and was again heard under the mandate of this court, at which the county court heard evidence and determined what charges were imposed by law within the rule laid down by this court, and entered judgment accordingly. From that judgment this appeal was prosecuted by the county collector, and both parties have joined in a request for an immediate decision.
The decision on the former appeal settled every question which was raised or might have been raised on that appeal, and the only question open to consideration on this appeal is whether the county court followed the mandate of this court in determining what portion of the taxes came within the proviso to the sixth paragraph of section 61 of the act relating to the management of the county affairs of Cook county. Upon an examination of the record it appears that the finding and judgment of the county court were in substantial compliance with the opinion filed on the former appeal and the mandate of this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comm'rs of Lincoln Park v. Schmidt
... ... People v. Day, 279 Ill. 148, 116 N.E. 729;Muhlke v. Muhlke, 285 Ill. 325, 120 N.E. 770. The trial court ... ...
-
Trustees of Sch. v. Hoyt
... ... People v. Day, 279 Ill. 148, 116 N. E. 729. There are many other decisions which hold that, where a ... ...
-
Smith v. Dugger
... ... v. National Hollow Brake-Beam Co., 239 Ill. 111, 87 N. E. 872;People v. Day, 279 Ill. 148, 116 N. E. 729. A decree entered by a trial court in accordance with the ... ...
-
People v. National Builders Bank of Chicago, BAIRD-SMIT
...decree is in accordance with the mandate and directions of this court. Smith v. Dugger, 318 Ill. 215, 149 N.E. 277; People ex rel. Stuckart v. Day, 279 Ill. 148, 116 N.E. 729. It is the duty of the trial court to follow those directions, and an order or decree entered in accordance with suc......