People v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 November 1879
• Citation: 94 Ill. 226,1879 WL 8684
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISv.IRWIN Z. SMITH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

94 Ill. 226

1879 WL 8684 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

v.IRWIN Z. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November Term, 1879.

APPEAL from the County Court of Madison county; the Hon. M. G. DALE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. C. L. COOK, and Messrs. WISE & DAVIS, for the appellant.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an application by the county collector of Madison county, at the May term, 1879, of the county court, for judgment against lands for taxes for the year 1878, and back taxes, costs and penalties for the years 1876 and 1877.

One Irwin Z. Smith, who owned a certain tract, appeared and resisted judgment against his land for the amount claimed, on the ground that the statute had not been complied with prior to the rendition of judgments in 1877 and 1878.

The court on the hearing refused to render judgment for the amount claimed, $208.65, but rendered a judgment for $199.98, the amount of taxes due for the year 1878, and the back taxes for the years 1876 and 1877, with six per cent interest on the back taxes. The collector claims that the judgment is erroneous, and by agreement the parties have certified the following questions for decision:

“1. Is it proper, in the present application for judgment by the collector against the land, when taxes have not been paid for several years on the land, and against which judgment has been obtained each year without any defence being made in writing or otherwise by the owner, for the court, in this application, which includes the taxes of the present year and all the taxes for said back years, with costs, interest, etc., attached, to allow the owner at this time to raise any defence which he could properly have raised when the judgments were obtained each year? Are not the judgments thus obtained each year against the owner settled, determined, and can he afterwards attack the amount of the judgments thus obtained? And if the forfeiture should be illegal in each year in which back tax is charged, and the application for this includes these illegal forfeitures, can judgment be rendered against the land for the back taxes, interest, penalties, etc., included in the illegal forfeitures?

2. If the owner can go back--show the judgment and forfeitures were not legal--can the court in this proceeding add to the back taxes interest from the time the land was each year, respectively, sold, until the judgment, at the rate of six per cent per annum?”

It appears that judgment was rendered against the objector's land, in the years 1877 and 1878, for the taxes remaining due thereon in each of those years, and, for the want of bidders, it was forfeited to the State. Whether the judgments rendered in each of these years may be regarded as final and conclusive on the parties in this application, is a question which we do not deem it necessary to decide. As the land was forfeited to the State in each of the years 1877 and 1878, the question presented is, what amount the county clerk was required to add to the assessment of 1878, on account of the forfeiture, when he extended the taxes for that year.

This question must be determined by the statute, as our entire revenue system is created by and depends upon the statute for its force and vitality. Sec. 129 of the Revenue law, R. S. 1874, page 879, provides: “In all cases where any real property has heretofore been or...