People ex rel. Toman v. Chicago Great Western R. Co.
Decision Date | 13 May 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 26653.,26653. |
Citation | 379 Ill. 594,41 N.E.2d 960 |
Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. TOMAN, County Collector, v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of John Toman, County Collector, against the Chicago Great Western Railroad Company.From a judgment of the county court sustaining the objcetions of the defendant to taxes for school purposes and building purposes for the year 1940, levied by School DistrictNo. 89 of the town of Proviso, the relator appeals.
Judgment affirmed.Appeal from Cook County Court; Edmund K. Jarecki, Judge.
Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., Marshall V. Kearney, Brendan Q. O'Brien, and Austin L. Wyman, all of Chicago, for appellant.
Robert N. Holt and Pomeroy Sinnock, both of Chicago, for appellee.
The county collector of Cook county appeals from a judgment of the county court sustaining the objections of the defendant, the Chicago Great Western Railroad Company, to the taxes for school purposes and building purposes for the year 1940 levied by School DistrictNo. 89 of the town of Proviso.Disposition of this appeal is dependent upon the legality of an election held on August 20, 1921, to vote upon the single proposition of an increase in the tax rates for educational purposes and building purposes.
As amended in 1921, section 189 of ‘An act to establish and maintain a system of free schools,’ Laws of 1921, p. 818, authorized the board of education of school districts such as district No. 89 to levy annually a tax not to exceed two per cent for educational purposes, and, upon a favorable vote of the legal voters on ‘a proposition’ to levy a tax not to exceed three per cent for educational purposes.Similarly, section 189 prescribed the tax rate for building purposes and the purchase of school grounds at three-fourths of one per cent without a referendum and authorized a rate of one per cent after a favorable vote for an increase in the rate.Provision was made for the submission of ‘such propositions' to the voters of the district.On August 20, 1921, a special school election was held for the purpose of voting on--
‘The proposition for an assent to the levy an annual tax of more than two per cent but not to exceed three per cent for educational purposes and of more than three fourths of one per cent but not to exceed one per cent for building purposes.’
For the Proposition.....________
Against the Proposition.....________
A canvass of the returns disclosed that 75 votes were cast in favor of and 8 votes against the proposition.Admittedly, no election was held prior to or since August 20, 1921, purporting to authorize any increase in either educational or building fund taxes for district No. 89.In 1927, the basis of assessed valuation of property was changed from one-half of full value to full value.Laws of 1927, p. 745. Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, c. 120, § 297.As the result of an act amending section 189 of the School Law, approved the same day, July 7, 1927, Laws of 1927, p. 824, Smith-Hurd Stats.c. 122, § 212, the tax rate for school district No. 89 for educational purposes was correspondingly reduced to one per cent without, and to a maximum of one and one-half per cent (later increased to one and four-fifths per cent from one and one-half per cent upon a second election) after, a referendum.In like fashion, the rate for building fund purposes was reduced to three eighths of one per cent without, and to a maximum of one-half of one per cent after, a referendum.It thus appears that the rates under section 189, as amended in 1927, applied to a full valuation would produce the same amount of taxes as the higher rates applied to the one-half assessed valuation which previously obtained.In 1940, school district No. 89 levied for educational purposes a rate of $1.67 per $100 assessed valuation and for building purposes forty-six cents for each $100 assessed valuation.
Defendant maintains that the statutory limit of rate for educational purpose in 1940 was $1, and for building purposes thirty-seven and one-half cents, and that, therefore, the rate of $1.67 for educational purposes was excessive to the extent of sixty-seven cents and the rate for building purposes excessive to the extent of eight and one-half cents.Although not clear, it may be gleaned from the levy that an election subsequent to the election in 1921 authorized an increase in the rate for educational purposes from $1.50 to $1.80.Since there is no evidence in the record to this effect, a rate of $1.67 is without a basis and, in any event, seventeen cents of the rate for educational purposes is illegal upon the showing, or rather lack of showing, made.It is insisted that the ballot previously described did not give the voters of school district No. 89 an opportunity to vote ‘Yes' or ‘No’ separately on each of the two propositions submitted, namely, one for increasing the rate for educational purposes and the other for raising the building fund rate, and, consequently, the election was void because of the insufficient ballot.To obtain a reversal of the judgment of the county court, the collector urges that the inclusion in one question of the proposition to increase the educational and building fund rates was in conformity to the statute.The sole issue thus made and presented for our determination is the legality of the additional taxes extended for school district No. 89 under the form of ballot previously set forth.
Section 189 of the School Law does not provide a form of ballot to be used in elections authorizing an increase in the tax rates.Under such circumstances, the general Election Law,Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 46, par. 305, p. 1483, provides that whenever a public measure is submitted to be voted upon by the people within any district the substance of the measure shall be clearly indicated on a separate ballot, and two spaces shall be left upon the righthand margin thereof, one for the votes favoring the measure, to be designated by the word ‘Yes,’ and one for the votes in opposition, to be designated by the word ‘No,’ as in the form set forth in the statute.It has long been held that propositions for public measures cannot be coupled together on a ballot so as to deprive the voter of an opportunity to vote separately and independently on each proposition.O'Connor v. Board of Education, 288 Ill. 240, 123 N.E. 283;Williams v. People, 132 Ill. 574, 24 N.E. 647;People v. County of Tazewell, 22 Ill. 147;Board of Supervisors of Fulton County v. Mississippi and Wabash Railroad Co., 21 Ill. 338.In the case first cited, there was submitted a proposition to build a new high school building in Evanston upon a new site to be subsequently selected and, also, to issue bonds for the purpose of purchasing such new site when selected and of paying the cost of erecting a new high school building on the new site.Holding that a proposition to purchase a new high school site is not properly submitted at an election where it is so combined...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Castelli v. Carcieri, No. PC 07-6322 (R.I. Super 7/31/2008)
... ... 2d 420, 422 (Ohio 1982) ( quoting State, ex rel. Buckman, v. Munson , 141 Ohio St. 319, 326, 48 ... Misek v. Chicago , 783 F.2d 98, 100 (7 th Cir. 1998); see also ... ...
-
Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Bd. of Elections
...separately. (See O'Connor v. High School Board of Education (1919), 288 Ill. 240, 123 N.E. 283, and People ex rel. Toman v. Chicago Great Western R.R. Co. (1942), 379 Ill. 594, 41 N.E.2d 960.) Our more recent opinions, however, clearly establish that it is only separate and unrelated questi......
-
Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist.
...void. (Roll v. Carrolton Community Unit School Dist., 3 Ill.2d 148, 150--152 incl., 121 N.E.2d 1; People ex rel. Toman v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., 379 Ill. 594, 598, 41 N.E.2d 960; Williams v. People ex rel. Wilson, 132 Ill. 574, 585, 24 N.E. 647.) However, we do not agree that s......
-
People ex rel. Schlaeger v. Reilly Tar & Chem. Corp.
...special purposes, applying solely to the building of school houses and matters incident thereto. People ex rel. Toman v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co., 379 Ill. 594, 41 N.E.2d 960. The expenses are general operating expenses of the board,-educational fund charges. Section 189 1/8 of th......