People v. Sisson

• Decision Date: 21 March 1881
• Citation: 1881 WL 10485,98 Ill. 335
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISv.JOHN W. SISSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

98 Ill. 335

1881 WL 10485 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

v.JOHN W. SISSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Mar. 21, 1881.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Third District;-- heard in that court on appeal from the County Court of Jersey county; the Hon. ROBERT A. KING, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. SNEDECKER & HAMILTON, and Mr. A. A. GOODRICH, State's Attorney, for the People:

This election was held under and by virtue of sec. 47, Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 962, and is clearly in conformity with the law, and valid and binding upon said district No. 8, and the school directors of said district executed the bonds of said district for the sum of $10,000, and purchased the said lots 4 and 5 voted for at said election, as they were lawfully authorized to do by said election, under the statute aforesaid.

We contend that lawful authority was conferred upon the school directors of district No. 8, by this election, to issue the bonds of said district, to purchase said lots 4 and 5, in block 2, and the amount of bonds to be issued by them not being specified on the ballots cast, the directors are only limited in the amount of their issue by said section 47, page 962, Rev. Stat. 1874, to five per cent of the taxable property of the district, and there is no objection made that the bonds issued were in excess of the amount permissible by law.

Mere irregularities will not invalidate an election, and if the notice specifies the purpose of the election in such a way as to leave no doubt of its meaning, it is valid. Merritt et al. v. Farris et al. 22 Ill. 303.

The bonds having been issued, it must clearly appear that they were issued without authority before the tax levied to pay interest can be defeated. Chiniquy v. The People ex rel. 78 Ill. 570.

Messrs. WARREN & POGUE, for the defendant in error:

The property for which the bonds were issued was held in trust for a primary school house and place of worship, and erected with funds donated expressly for such purpose, and consequently could not be sold to the school district in violation of the trust under which the same was first acquired. A donation for a private school can not be appropriated to help support the public schools. McIntire v. Zanesville, 17 Ohio St. 352; Phillip Academy v. King, 12 Mass. 562; Plymouth v. Jackson,15 Pa. St. 44; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, sces. 48-51, and 57-79; 2 Perry on Trusts, 352, 349, 350, note 2, sec. 733; 2 Story's Eq. Jur. secs. 1162, 1192, 1257 and 1258.

The ballots of the voters voting for lots 4 and 5 and for the issuing of bonds, did not say whether the directors were to erect a building thereon or purchase one. Neither the notice nor the ballots say one word about issuing bonds to pay for the school site. The propositions voted on were distinct and should have been submitted separately.

Notice of an election upon the question whether a town will vote a tax for paying a bounty does not authorize a vote to borrow money for this purpose. Atwood v. Town of Lincoln, 44 Vt. 332; Blush v. Colchester, 39 Id. 193.

A school tax voted at a meeting not legally called is void. Hains v. School District, 41 Me. 246; Rideouts v. School District, 1 Allen, 232; People v. Castro, 39 Cal. 65; Cooley on Taxation, 247-9.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an application by the collector of Jersey county, to the county court, for judgment against real estate for delinquent tax of 1877, at which time John W. Sisson filed his objections to the rendition of judgment against his real estate situate in school district No. 8, township No. 7, range No. 12, in said county, for three-fifths of the school tax levied for the year 1877. The court sustained the objections, rendered judgment accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court for the Third District, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed. The cause was thereupon brought to this court upon writ of error.

The objections were, that the three-fifths of the school tax complained of was to pay $1000 interest, and $500 principal, of $10,000 of the bonds of said school district, which had been issued to Hamilton Primary school, a corporation, in payment of the purchase money of lots 4 and 5, in block 2, in the town of Otterville; and that the bonds were invalid because of the insufficiency of the form of the notice for the election, which was called for a vote upon the question of the issue of the bonds; and also that the said lots were trust property and could not be conveyed, wherefore the bonds were issued without consideration and were void. The form of the notice in the particular which is objected to as being insufficient, was, “for the purpose of voting for a school house site, for a school house for district No. 8, in township No. 7, north range No. 12, west of the third principal meridian, in said Jersey county, State of Illinois. Also for the purpose of voting for or against issuing bonds to erect or purchase a school house for said district.” It appears that at the election held in pursuance of the notice, on December 2, 1876, ninety-four ballots were cast, fifty two of them containing the words, “For school house site in district No. 8, township 7, north range 12, Jersey county, Illinois, lots 4 and 5, block 2, Otterville, Illinois,” and “for issuing bonds,” and that forty-two ballots were cast with the words on them, ““Against school house site,” and “against issuing bonds.” At the time, there was a school house on the lots. The district had never before had a school house site, or school house.

The fault found with the notice is, that it fails to specify the questions to be voted upon with sufficient particularity; that it should name the particular school house site which was to be voted for; that what was to be voted for should be stated definitely, and not in the alternative; that the amount of the bonds to be issued should have been stated; that the notice does not embrace a vote to pay for a school house site; that the questions here should have been separately submitted at different elections; and that there is no power given to school directors to purchase a school house already erected; and that the authority is only to borrow money, and not to exchange bonds for school property.

The statute provision is (§ 47 School Law, Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 962,) that for the purpose of building school...