People ex rel. Yakel v. Toledo, ST. L.&W.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 9715.,9715. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. YAKEL, County Collector, v. TOLEDO, ST. L. & W. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Fayette County Court; John H. Webb, Judge.
Proceeding by the People, on relation of C. E. Yakel, County Collector, against the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment against it for taxes, the defendant appeals. Reversed in part and remanded, with directions.Arthur Roe, of Vandalia, and C. E. Pope and H. F. Driemeyer, both of East St. Louis (Charles A. Schmettau, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.
J. G. Burnside, State's Atty., of Vandalia, for appellee.
The appellant filed objections to the application of the collector of Fayette county for judgment against its property for taxes, some of which were overruled, and from the judgment rendered an appeal has been taken.
The levy for county taxes included $3,000 ‘for printing and publishing,’ and it is insisted that this item is too indefinite and embraces more than one purpose, and is therefore void. In People v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Ry. Co., 237 Ill. 312, 86 N. E. 721, an item for ‘printing, books and stationery, $800,’ was held sufficiently certain. It is the duty of the county board to cause a statement of the proceedings of each of its meetings to be published, and other printing may be properly required by the county. This objection was properly overruled.
The county levy included $2,800 to pay for the construction of state aid roads, and the same objection is made to this item as was made in People v. Kankakee & Seneca R. Co. (No. 9756) 107 N. E. 218, and for the reasons there given it was properly overruled.
Another item objected to was $10,000 ‘to pay the salaries of county officers.’ It is insisted that the county judge, county superintendent of highways, and the probationofficer, whose salaries amount to $2,500, were the only officers whose salaries could be paid from the county treasury. To these should be added the state's attorney, whose salary was $2,500. Besides these, testimony was introduced to show that the other officers of the county, and their salaries, were as follows: County clerk, circuit clerk, sheriff and superintendent of schools, each $2,000; treasurer, $1,500; janitor, $480; coroner, $400; superintendent of county farm, $300; matron of county farm, $150; members of board of review, $600. The salaries of the county clerk, circuit clerk, sheriff, and treasurer are payable only out of fees earned and collected by them. It is true that if they do not earn and collect, from other sources than the county, fees sufficient to pay their salaries, they will be entitled to collect from the county fees for services rendered to the county to an amount equal to the deficiencies in their salaries if they have earned fees from the county to that amount. But the amount will not be collected as salary, but as fees earned by services rendered, the same as fees are earned by services to individuals, and must be accounted for to the county as a part of the earnings of their respective offices. The county may become liable to pay these fees, but cannot lawfully pay the salaries of these officers, and cannot therefore levy taxes for this purpose. The salary of the superintendent of schools is payable from the state school fund. The coroner receives no salary from the county. The janitor, superintendent, and matron of the county farm are none of them county officers, and a separate item of the levy covered the pay of the members of the board of review. The item for the payment of salaries of county officers was excessive to the amount of $5,000, and a proportionate amount should have been deducted from the amount for which judgment was rendered against the appellant's property.
Objection was made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial