People ex rel. Williamson v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1912 |
| Citation | 253 Ill. 100,97 N.E. 245 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAMSON, County Collector, v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Stark County Court; B. F. Thompson, Judge.
Application by the People, on the relation of E. G. Williamson, County Collector of Stark County, for judgment and order of sale against the property of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company for taxes. From a judgment for the taxes and ordering a sale, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wright & Wright (J. A. Connell and W. D. Barge, of counsel), for appellant.
J. H. Rennick, State's Atty., and J. W. Fling, Jr., for appellee.
This was an application for judgment and order of sale in the county court of Stark county by E. G. Williamson, as county collector, against the property of the appellant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, for certain taxes extended by the county clerk of said county for the year 1910. The railroad company appeared and filed objections to the rendition of judgment and order of sale as to the following taxes: County tax, $88.78; city of Wyoming tax, $47.25; town of Osceola road and bridge tax, $231.57; town of Penn road and bridge tax, $87.63; town of Essex road and bridge tax, $115.15. The court overruled the objections, and rendered judgment and order of sale against the appellant's property, and it has prosecuted this appeal.
The first objection made is as to the county tax. The record shows the board of supervisors made a tax levy for county purposes of $18,000, specifying its various purposes in detail, which included $2,000 for ‘contingent and general expenses,’ which, it is objected, was an excessive amount to be levied under so general a specification, by virtue of the requirements of section 121 of chapter 120 (Hurd's Stat. 1909, p. 1846), which provides that when a county tax levy is made for several purposes the amount for each purpose must be stated separately. The second objection is to the city tax of the city of Wyoming. The record shows a tax levy by the city council of the city of Wyoming, for all purposes, of $4,600, which specified in detail the purposes for which the levy was made, and which included $600 for ‘contingent and general expenses,’ which, it is also objected, was an excessive amount to be levied under so general a specification, by virtue of section 111 of chapter 24 (Hurd's Stat. 1909, p. 356), which declares that a tax levy for city purposes shall be made by an ordinance which specifies in detail the purposes for which the tax levy is made. The objections made to said county and city taxes being the same, the two objections will be considered together.
[1] In a number of cases heretofore decided by this court, it was held a tax levy for ‘current expenses,’ for ‘county purposes,’ for ‘county revenue,’ for payment of ‘county claims,’ for payment of ‘contingent expenses for the use and benefit of the town,’ was too indefinite and uncertain to sustain a tax levy. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 458, 72 N. E. 1105;Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 197, 72 N. E. 774;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 23, 73 N. E. 310;People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway Co., 224 Ill. 523, 79 N. E. 657;People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 231 Ill. 209, 83 N. E. 111;People v. Illinois & Indiana Railroad Co., 231 Ill. 377, 83 N. E. 113. The doctrine of these cases has, however, been modified in People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 237 Ill. 312, 86 N. E. 721, Id.,247 Ill. 360, 93 N. E. 405, and People v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 249 Ill. 549, 94 N. E. 959, to the extent that it is now held that under the designation ‘contingent expenses,’ or other similar designation, a small sum may be provided by a tax levy, with which items of expense may be paid which will necessarily arise during the year, and which cannot appropriately be classified under any of the specific purposes for which other taxes are levied. In People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 237 Ill. 312, 86 N. E. 721, the amount levied for incidentals was $100, and in People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co., 247 Ill. 360, 93 N. E. 405, the amount levied was $500, but no question was made as to the amount of the levy; and in People v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., supra, one levy was for $609 and the other for $500, and in that case no question was made as to the amount of the taxes levied.
[2] In this case the amount levied as a county tax for ‘contingent and general expenses' was $2,000, which was one-ninth of the total taxes levied in Stark county for ‘county purposes' for the year 1910, and the amount levied as a city tax in the city of Wyoming for ‘contingent and general expenses' was $600, which was about one-eighth of the total taxes levied for the year 1910; and the objections were...
To continue reading
Request your trial