People ex rel. Thies v. Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22221.,22221.
• Citation: People ex rel. Thies v. Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co., 356 Ill. 272, 190 N.E. 280 (Ill. 1934)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. THIES, County Collector, v. BALTIMORE & O. S. W. R. CO.

356 Ill. 272

190 N.E. 280

PEOPLE ex rel. THIES, CountyCollector,

v.BALTIMORE & O. S. W. R. CO.

No. 22221.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1934.

Application by the People, on the relation of John Thies, County Collector, for judgment against and an order for the sale of parcels of land and other property returned delinquent for nonpayment of general taxes, to which the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company filed objections.From a judgment in favor of applicant, objector appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Effingham County Court; Harold J. Taylor, Judge.

Parker & Bauer, of Effingham (Graham & Graham, of Springfield, and William A. Eggers, of Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.

Paul Taylor, State's Atty., of Effingham, for appellee.

DE YOUNG, Justice.

The treasurer and ex officio collector of Effingham county applied to the county court of that county for judgment against and an order for the sale of the parcels of land and other property returned delinquent for nonpayment of the general taxes for the year 1932.The Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company objected to a portion of the taxes levied upon its property by the county of Effingham; the objections were overruled, judgment was rendered for the taxes, and the railroad company prosecutes this appeal.

The board of supervisors of Effingham county levied taxes for the year 1932 aggregating $47,000.This sum included an item ‘For support of county poor, $4000.’The railroad company's objection was interposed to this item, its share of the particular tax amounting to $117.60.The basis of the objection is that the burden of supporting paupers rests, not upon the county, but upon the several towns or townships into which the county is divided.

The county of Effingham is under township organization and has less than 500,000 inhabitants.Section 15 of the act to revise the law in relation to paupers, as amended by the Act approved June 29, 1931(Smith-HurdRev. St. 1933, c. 107, § 15, Cahill'sRev. St. 1933, c. 107, par. 15), provides: ‘In counties having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants which are under township organization, the various towns shall relieve and support all poor and indigent persons lawfully resident within their respective territories, except as herein otherwise provided.’The thirty-third section of the same act, as amended by the Act approved June 29, 1931(Smith-HurdRev. St. 1933, c. 107, § 34), provides that, when any county shall have a poorhouse, ‘all the poor persons requiring the care and support of the county, or the township, as the case may be, may be cared for and supported at such poor house, except when they cannot be received in the poor house, and except as herein otherwise provided.’By these sections, as amended, the Legislature imposed upon the towns in the counties which qualify in population and organization, subject to the primary obligation of relatives, the duty to relieve and support all poor and indigent persons lawfully resident within the respective towns, and made available the existing county poorhouse for the care and support of such paupers.Their transfer to the county institution, however, does not relieve a town or township of the obligation to pay for their support.People v. Peoria & Eastern Railway Co., 354 Ill. 30, 187 N. E. 795;People v. Alton Railroad Co., 352 Ill. 297, 185 N. E. 576;People v. Franklin, 352 Ill. 528, 186 N. E. 137.The obligation continues, notwithstanding the poor and indigent who are the charges of a town are afforded support and shelter by the county.The imposition of the burden upon towns is within the legislative power.People v. Peoria, & Eastern Railway Co., supra;People v. Camargo, etc., School District, 313 Ill. 321, 145 N. E. 154;People v. Bartlett, 304 Ill. 283, 136 N. E. 654;Marion County v. Lear, 108 Ill. 343;Board of Supervisors of Sangamon County v. City of Springfield, 63 Ill. 66;People v. Power, 25 Ill. 169.

Since counties under township organization having a population of less than 500,000 have been relieved of the obligation to support the poor and indigent persons lawfullyresident within their respective towns, there is no authority for the levy of a tax by a county for the support of such paupers.People v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co., 353 Ill. 518, 187 N. E. 443.The purpose for which a tax is levied must be disclosed by the terms and provisions of the levy, and an undisclosed purpose...