People ex rel. Tilley v. Ross

• Decision Date: 22 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 10319.,10319.
• Citation: 110 N.E. 819,271 Ill. 67
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. TILLEY, County Collector, v. ROSS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

271 Ill. 67

110 N.E. 819

PEOPLE ex rel. TILLEY, County Collector,

v.ROSS.

No. 10319.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1915.

Appeal from Shelby County Court; A. J. Steidley, Judge.

Action by the People, on the relation of Samuel L. Tilley, County Collector, against Walter L. Ross, Receiver of the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company, to collect school district taxes. Judgment for the People, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. C. & T. M. Headen, of Shelbyville, and C. E. Pope and H. F. Driemeyer, both of East St. Louis (Charles A. Schmettau, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.

W. E. Lowe, State's Atty., of Shelbyville (J. C. Willard, of Shelbyville, of counsel), for appellee.

FARMER, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Shelby county for school district taxes against the property of appellant.

The school tax in five districts was objected to, aggregating $674.66. The objection to the tax is that it was levied for ‘school purposes' instead of for ‘educational purposes,’ as required by the form of certificate prescribed by section 190 of the present School Law. The form of certificate used by the board of directors in the respective districts was the same except as to the amount of the tax, and is as follows:

‘Certificate of Levy.

‘To be returned to the township treasurer the first Tuesday in August.

‘We hereby certify that we require the amount of four hundred ($400) dollars to be levied as a special tax for school purposes and _____ dollars for building purposes on the taxable property of our district for the year 1914.’

Section 189 of the School Law of 1909 authorizes the levy of a tax for ‘educational’ and for ‘building’ purposes. Section 190 requires the board of directors to annually ascertain how much money must be raised by special tax for educational and for building purposes, and on or before the first Tuesday in August certify the same to the township treasurer. In none of the school districts in question was there any attempt made to levy a tax for building purposes or for any other purpose than school purposes. The sole ground upon which it is contended the tax is invalidis that in each of the five certificates the directors certified the levy was required for ‘school’ purposes instead of ‘educational’ purposes.

Section 1 of article 8 of the School Law of 1889 (Laws of 1889, p. 316) provided that for the purpose of establishing and supporting free schools and defraying all the expenses of the same, of every description, the directors of the school districts were authorized, annually, to levy a tax ‘for educational’ and ‘for building’ purposes. Section 2 of said article 8 required the directors, annually, to determine how much money must be raised by special tax ‘for school purposes' and certify the same to the township treasurer on or before the first Tuesday in August. The form of the certificate of levy as prescribed by that section is as follows:

‘We certify that we require the sum of _____ dollars to be levied as a special tax for school purposes and _____ dollars for building purposes on the taxable property of our district.’

Koelling v. People, 196 Ill. 353, 63 N. E. 735,Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Reople, 205 Ill. 625, 69 N. E. 72, and other cases, hold the terms ‘for educational purposes' and ‘for school purposes' were used interchangeably and mean the same thing. Appellant insists those cases have no bearing here because the two terms were not so used in the revision of 1909. In Knopf v. People, 185 Ill....