People Ex Rel. William T. Johnson v. Springer

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHELDON
• Citation: People Ex Rel. William T. Johnson v. Springer, 106 Ill. 542, 1883 WL 10246 (Ill. 1883)
• Decision Date: 10 May 1883
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. William T. Johnsonv.GEORGE A. SPRINGER.

106 Ill. 542

1883 WL 10246 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE ex rel. William T. Johnson

v.GEORGE A. SPRINGER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa May 10, 1883.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. MASON B. LOOMIS, Judge, presiding; and also writ of error to such County Court in same matter.

Mr. M. W. FULLER, and Mr. JESSE B. BARTON, for the appellant.

Mr. J. W. WAUGHOP, for the appellee and defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

Application was made July 10, 1882, by the county treasurer and ex officio collector of Cook county, to the county court of that county, for judgment for delinquent taxes and assessments, including the unpaid installments of the South Park assessments. The court entered an order that all objections to the rendition of judgment on lands and lots delinquent for such taxes and assessments be filed, in writing, on or before the coming in of the court on the 12th day of July, 1882. No objections having been filed as to the lands and lots described in this record, in accordance with said order, default was entered, and July 19, 1882, a judgment was rendered against these lands and lots, and a precept directed to the collector to sell the same to recover the taxes and assessments so found due and unpaid. August 2, 1882, the appellee filed his written motion to vacate said judgment, supported by his affidavit, which motion the court set for hearing at the August term, and which was, on September 9, taken up and the judgment vacated, and a further order entered refusing judgment as to said lots and lands for the delinquent installments of the South Park assessments. An appeal was prayed and granted to the Appellate Court for the First District from such judgment of refusal, where, upon motion of the appellee, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the case is brought here on appeal from the order of dismissal.

Amended section 88 of the Practice act provides, among other things, that appeals shall be taken from the trial court directly to this court, “in all cases relating to revenue, or in which the State is interested, as a party or otherwise.” (Laws 1879, p. 222.) In Webster v. The People, 98 Ill. 343, we held that the term “revenue,” as in that section used, embraced all taxes and assessments imposed by public authority. We are of opinion that these South Park assessments should be held as embraced within that term, revenue, and that the Appellate Court properly dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A writ of error has also been sued out from this court to the same judgment of the county court, which requires us to consider the propriety of that judgment.

As already observed, the court, at the July term, 1882, entered a judgment for these installments of this special assessment, but subsequently set aside the judgment, and entered an order refusing judgment. Exception is taken to this action of the court in setting aside the former judgment and entering the order refusing judgment, as unwarranted. The motion to set aside the first judgment was made at the July term,--the same term at which the judgment was entered,-- and for want of time to hear the motion it was laid over until the next term, and at the next term,--the August term of the court,--the court heard the motion and set aside the judgment, and entered an order refusing judgment. The motion in the case was based on an affidavit, the truth of which was confessed. Section 40 of the Practice act is: “The court may, in its discretion, before final judgment, set aside any default, and may, during the term, set aside any judgment, upon good and sufficient cause, upon affidavit, upon such terms and conditions as shall be deemed reasonable.” (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 780.) The authority for continuing the motion to vacate the judgment at a subsequent term, and then pass upon it, is declared in Windett v. Hamilton, 52 Ill. 180, Hibbard v. Mueller, 86 Id. 256, and Hearson v. Graudine, 87 Id. 116. The above show authority sufficient for the court's action. Nor did it preclude the exercise of this power that a precept to the collector to sell had been issued upon the judgment, and that one tract had been sold by the collector before the judgment was vacated, as is shown by the record.

As respects the merits of the application, it appears that the installments of South Park special assessment for...