People v. Davis

Decision Date27 September 1884
PartiesTHE PEOPLE, for use of Christian County,v.HENRY DAVIS.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Christian county; the Hon. JESSE J. PHILLIPS, Judge, presiding. This was an action of debt, for the recovery of delinquent taxes. The declaration contains two counts, which are as follows:

The People of the State of Illinois, by John B. Jones, their attorney, and John G. Drennan, State's attorney for said county, complain of Henry Davis, the defendant, of a plea of debt,--for that the defendant, on the first day of May, A. D. 1875, and afterward, was the owner of a large amount of personal property, consisting of moneys, moneys loaned and invested, notes, mortgages, bonds and credits,--which said personal property, moneys and credits were controlled by Henry D. Davis, as agent for said defendant; that at said time said Henry D. Davis resided in and had his office and place of business in school district No. 2, in the town of Taylorville, in the county of Christian, State of Illinois; that on, to-wit, the second day of May, A. D. 1875, the assessor of the township of Taylorville, in said county, applied to said Henry D. Davis, and requested him to make a statement of the personal property of said defendant controlled by said Henry D. Davis, as his agent, for the purpose of taxation, as provided by law; that said Henry D. Davis refused to make any list or statement of such personal property, and thereupon the said assessor ascertained the amount and value thereof, and assessed the same at the sum of $142,707; that said sum was the fair amount and value of said property; and that for the year A. D. 1875 a personal property tax was levied against defendant, upon said assessment, to the aggregate amount of $2554.67, being $421.10 State tax due to the State of Illinois, the sum of $332.16 county tax due said Christian county as a county tax, and $63.69 as a county railroad tax, $50.45 town tax due the town of Taylorville, in said county, as a town tax, and $203.79 due said town as town railroad tax, and $1451.90 district school tax, due school district No. 2, in township 13, north, range 2, west of the third principal meridian, in said town of Taylorville, and county aforesaid; that said State, county, county railroad, town, town railroad and district school tax were, by the county clerk of said county, duly extended upon the tax collector's book of said town of Taylorville, as the law requires; that said tax collector's book, with the said taxes extended thereon, was duly delivered to the collector of said town for the year A. D. 1875, with a proper warrant thereto attached, as the law requires, commanding said collector to collect from defendant and the several other persons named on said book against whom taxes were levied and specified in the several columns opposite their names; that the said town collector, while he had said collection book in his hands, with said warrant thereto attached, duly demanded from said defendant the said taxes so levied and extended on said collector's book against defendant; that said defendant failed and refused to pay the same; that said town collector used due diligence to collect the said taxes; that no personal property of defendant could at that time be found in said town, nor in said county, out of which said taxes could be made; that said town collector duly returned said taxes to the county collector, at the time he returned the said book, as delinquent, with a written statement, under oath, that he had used due diligence to collect the same, and that no property could be found out of which to make said taxes; that defendant was then, and had been for a long time prior thereto, the owner in fee of the following described land situated in Christian county, Illinois, to-wit: the south-east quarter of section 20, in town 15, north, range 1, west of the third principal meridian; that in order to collect the said tax it became necessary to charge the same upon real property of defendant situated in said county; that the county collector of said county did select the above tract of land as the land of defendant, out of which to make the said taxes, and attached the said personal property tax to said land; that said county collector duly advertised said land as delinquent, and advertised that he would apply for a judgment against said land at the June term of said county court, A. D. 1876, and that he would offer said land for sale on the 19th day of June, A. D. 1876, and designated the said tract in said advertisement as the tract against which said personal property tax was charged; that said county collector showed the fact that said personal property tax was charged against said land, in his list of delinquent lands filed for judgment at the June term, A. D. 1876, of said county court, as the law requires; that at said June term, A. D. 1876, of said county court, judgment was duly rendered against said land for said taxes and costs; that on the 19th day of June, 1876, said county collector offered said land for sale at public sale, in pursuance of such notice; that at said sale said collector received no bid for said land, and the said land was then and there forfeited to the State of Illinois; that defendant has never paid the said taxes, nor any part thereof, and plaintiff avers that the said personal property tax so attached to said land was, by the county clerk of said county, carried forward, with the interest thereon provided by law in case of back taxes, and extended on the collector's book in the town of Mosquito, where said land is situated, each year thereafter; that said collector's book, with the taxes so extended thereon, has been duly delivered to the collector of said town of Mosquito each year since the said year 1876, with a proper warrant thereto attached, as required by law; that said defendant was not at any time a resident of said town of Mosquito, and had no personal property in said county during nor since the year 1876 out of which the said taxes could be made; that the said town collector, for each of said years since 1876, returned said taxes to the county collector, uncollected, with a statement in writing, under oath, that he had used due diligence, and that said taxes could not be collected; that the county collector of said county, for each year since 1876, reported said taxes to the county court of said county as delinquent, and specified the same, as required by law, each year, on the delinquent list filed by him to obtain judgment against said land for said taxes, and that judgment was rendered against said land each year for said taxes by said county court; that said land was, after being duly advertised by the said county collector, offered for sale each year, and each year said land was forfeited to the State for want of bidders; and plaintiff avers that the county clerk of said county extended the said taxes forward, as back taxes, upon the collector's book for said town of Mosquito, for the year A. D. 1879, containing the taxes of 1879, in separate columns, as required by law; that the total amount of said taxes, with the interest thereon, and taxes as provided by law, extended upon said book, was the sum of $3804.50; that said tax book, with said taxes for said year 1879, was duly delivered to the collector of said town of Mosquito, with a proper warrant thereto attached; that said collector returned said tax, uncollected, to the county collector of said county when he returned the said book, with a statement in writing, under oath, that he had used due diligence to collect the said taxes, and that the same could not be collected; that the said county collector duly advertised said land for judgment, on the second Monday of June, A. D. 1880, in said county court, and advertised the same for sale on the 19th day of June, A. D. 1880; that said county collector placed said land on the delinquent list filed by him, as required by law, prior to the said second Monday of June, A. D. 1880, to obtain judgment against said land for said taxes; that judgment was duly rendered against said land by the said county court for the said sum of $3804.50, the amount of said taxes, interest and costs; that said land was by said county collector duly offered for sale, at public sale, on the 19th day of June, A. D. 1880, after due notice having been given, according to law; that at said sale said collector received no bid for said land, or any part thereof, and the said land was then and there forfeited to the State of Illinois; that defendant has never paid said taxes, nor any part thereof, and the said defendant was then and there requested to pay the said taxes by the town collector of said town of Taylorville, but the said defendant did not nor would not pay the said amount, nor any part thereof,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • State ex rel. Langer v. Packard
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1918
    ... ... 558; New Orleans v. Stemple, 175 U.S. 309, ... 44 L.Ed. 174, 20 S.Ct. 110; Boyd v. Selma, 96 Ala ... 144, 16 L.R.A. 729, 11 So. 393; People v. Park, 23 ... Cal. 138; Sheeler v. Sohmer, 58 L.Ed. 1034 ...          "Notes ... and mortgages are of the same nature, and while they ... 390; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt ... 152; People v. Smith, 88 N.Y. 567; Hutchinson v ... Board, 66 Iowa 35, 23 N.W. 249; People v ... Davis, 112 Ill. 272; People v. Insurance Co., ... 29 Cal. 534; Herron v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472; New ... Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309; Bristol ... ...
  • Bistor v. McDonough
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1932
  • Commonwealth v. Curtis Publishing Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1912
    ... ... Repr. 544); Borden's App., 208 Ill. 369 (70 N.E. Repr ... 310); Glendinning's Est., 171 N.Y. 684 (64 N.E. Repr ... 1121); People v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533; ... Goldgart v. People, 106 Ill. 25; People v ... Davis, 112 Ill. 272; McKeen v. Northampton ... County, 49 Pa ... ...
  • State v. Scottish-American Mortgage Company (Limited) of Edinburgh, Scotland #Sup#1#/Sup#
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1899
    ...with those expressed in Re Jefferson, supra, as well as what is herein stated, is evident. Goldgart v. People, 106 Ill. 25; People v. Davis, 112 Ill. 272; Williams Board, 78 N.Y. 561; Myers v. Seaberger, 45 Oh. St. 232, 235, 12 N.E. 796; Boyd v. Selma, 96 Ala. 144, 11 So. 393; Catlin v. Hul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT