People ex rel. Vaughn v. Sargent
| Decision Date | 21 December 1911 |
| Citation | 252 Ill. 104,96 N.E. 847 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. VAUGHN, County Collector, v. SARGENT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Lee County Court; Robert H. Scott, Judge.
Application by the People, on the relation of Frank C. Vaughn, County Collector of Lee County, for judgment against the lands of Josephine E. Sargent and others for nonpayment of an installment of a special assessment. There was a judgment granting the application, and the landowners bring error. Reversed and remanded.
Henry C. Warner, Brooks & Brooks, and Dixon & Dixon, for plaintiffs in error.
Harry Edwards, State's Atty., and Mark C. Keller, City Atty., for defendant in error.
An application was made at the June term, 1911, of the county court of Lee county, for a judgment against the lands of plaintiffs in error for the nonpayment of the first installment of a special assessment levied under the local improvement act by the city of Dixon, Ill. Plaintiffs in error objected to the entry of judgment on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to confirm the assessment roll. The objection was overruled, and judgment entered. A writ of error has been sued out of this court to review that judgment.
Plaintiffs in error contend that 15 days' notice of the time and place at which application would be made for the confirmation of the assessment roll was not given, as required by sections 41 and 44 of the local improvement act. The judgment of confirmation recites that a good and sufficient affidavit of mailing notices and a good and sufficient affidavit of posting notices ‘have been filed herein,’ which are approved, and the court finds that the law has been complied with as to mailing, posting, and publishing notice of the application for confirmation, and that the court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. The certificate of publication states that notice was published daily for five successive days; the date of the first publication being the 29th day of June, and the date of the last July 5, 1909. The affidavit filed by the commissioner who spread the assessment states that he mailed notices to the property owners on June 29th, and on July 1st posted notices at eight different places in the neighborhood of the proposed improvement. The time fixed for the hearing was July 2d, at which time the hearing was continued until July 12th, when judgment was entered. It will be seen that less than 15 days intervened from the time of the first publication until the time of the hearing, and that the notices were also mailed and posted less than 15 days before the hearing.
[1] Defendant in error makes no claim that notice was given in compliance with the statute, but contends that the finding of the court that the law had been fully complied with as to mailing, posting, and publishing notices, and that the court had jurisdiction both of the parties and of the subject-matter, is conclusive when attacked in a collateral proceeding. If an inspection of the record in the confirmation proceeding discloses that the court was without jurisdiction, its finding that it had jurisdiction is overcome. This court has frequently held that a certificate of publication of a notice in a newspaper, which was defective in failing to show its publication in accordance with the requirements of law, was not sufficient to overcome the finding of the court, in its judgment, that it had jurisdiction. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People, 189 Ill. 119, 59 N. E. 609;Glover v. People, 188 Ill. 576, 59 N. E. 429;Casey v. People, 165 Ill. 49, 46 N. E. 7. Here, however, something more than notice by publication in a newspaper was required.
[2][3] Section 41 of the local improvement act requires notice of the intended application for confirmation to be sent by mail to each of the persons paying the taxes on the respective parcels of land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cash
...of jurisdictional facts in the judgment is not sufficient where the lack of jurisdiction appears from the record. People ex rel. Vaughan v. Sargent, 252 Ill. 104, 96 N.E. 847. Where the record itself shows the evidence upon which the court acted in finding that it had jurisdiction, no presu......
-
Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park
...the contention of appellant Beck. In support of this point she cites People v. Blocklinger, 344 Ill. 447, 176 N. E. 749;People v. Sargent, 252 Ill. 104, 96 N. E. 847;Yaggy v. City of Chicago, 194 Ill. 88, 62 N. E. 316, and Phillips v. People, 218 Ill. 450, 75 N. E. 1016. These cases are aut......
-
Haugan v. City of Chicago
...attack to overthrow the judgment of the court. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People, 189 Ill. 119, 59 N. E. 609;People v. Sargent, 252 Ill. 104, 96 N. E. 847. [9] The bill further alleges that the dates of mailing, posting, and publication were all within the December term of the county ......
- Anson v. New York Life Ins. Co.