People v. Shirk
| Decision Date | 21 December 1911 |
| Citation | 252 Ill. 95,96 N.E. 841 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SHIRK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Arnold Heap, Judge.
Action by the People of the State of Illinois against E. W. Shirk to recover delinquent personal property tax. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.
Ullmann, Hoag & Davidson, for plaintiff in error.
Francis S. Wilson, Co. Atty., and David W. Taylor, for the People.
[1][2] This is a writ of error sued out of this court by E. W. Shirk for the purpose of reviewing a judgment of the municipal court of Chicago against him for $225.60, recovered by the people of the state of Illinois in an action for delinquent personal property tax for the year 1908. The assessment upon which the judgment is based was an original board of review assessment made by that board in a lump sum, without designating the particular class or classes of property assessed. The errors assigned call in question the validity of the assessment as well as the validity of the statute under which the board of review assumed to act.
Plaintiff in error contends that the assessment in question was void: First, because plaintiff in error had no notice and opportunity to be heard before the assessment was made by the board of review; and, further, that even if notice had been given it would not answer the constitutional requirement of due process, because, it is said, no notice is required by the statute.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff in error was not assessed by the local assessor in any amount on personal property in the town of South Chicago, where he resided; that on the 31st day of August, 1908, the board of review made a personal property assessment against him of a gross amount of $3,000, and placed the same on a schedule in the column headed ‘Total assessed value as corrected by board of review.’ Alexander J. Johnson testified that the assessment in this case was made in a lump sum upon information received by the board that plaintiff in error was a capitalist worth two or three million dollars and was engaged in loaning money; that it was not known whether he had mortgages, money on hand, or other assets, or the amount and value of either. This witness testified that it was customary to send a postal card notice before an assessment was made by the board of review. He does not know whether such notice was sent in this case or not. It is admitted by plaintiff in error that a postal card notice was received by him in November, 1908, which was long after the assessment had been made. The postal card notice in November is the only notice, so far as the record shows, that the plaintiff in error received of this assessment. Section 276 of the revenue law (Hurd's Stat. 1908, p. 1797) provides for the assessment of property that has been omitted in the assessment of any year or number of years by the assessor, and section 278 provides that, before an assessment of omitted property shall be made by the assessor, the owner, if known, shall be notified by the assessor or clerk of such assessment. Section 329 of the revenue law provides, among other things, that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chicago Rys. Co.
...of an assessment long after it is made does not "meet the constitutional requirement of due process of law." People v. Shirk, 252 Ill. 95, at page 98, 96 N.E. 841, at page 842. In Lindheimer v. Nelson, 369 Ill. 312, at page 316, 16 N.E.2d 734, 737, in discussing a reassessment made without ......
-
Dietman v. Hunter
...District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 4 S.Ct. 663, 28 L.Ed. 569; People v. International Salt Co., 233 Ill. 223, 84 N.E. 278; People v. Shirk, 252 Ill. 95, 96 N.E. 841. In the present case the opportunity of a property owner to be heard before the board of review with respect to the propriety of ......
-
People ex rel. Jones v. Webb
...power of the board of review to assess, in subsequent years, credits which had been omitted was upheld. In the late case of People v. Shirk, 252 Ill. 95, 96 N. E. 841, this court held that, under section 329 of the revenue act, the board of review had the power to make an original assessmen......
-
People ex rel. Ball v. Anderson
...District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 4 S.Ct. 663, 28 L.Ed. 569; People v. International Salt Co., 233 Ill. 223, 84 N.E. 278; People v. Shirk, 252 Ill. 95, 96 N.E. 841.' Thus, it would appear that the duty to publish is a duty that can be enforced by mandamus, but that publication and notice is n......