People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 20 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32517,32517 |
| Citation | 413 Ill. 382,109 N.E.2d 196 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Aaron Soble, of Chicago, for appellants.
Robert C. Nelson, State's Attorney, Walter M. Givler, and Wilbur B. Brazell, all of Waukegan, and Harold J. Clark, of Chicago, for appellee.
The circuit court of Lake County entered a decree of foreclosure and sale in a tax foreclosure proceeding. At 9:30 A.M., on the day fixed for the sale, at the instance of Harold Harris, the appellant, who was a prospective bidder, an order was entered vacating the decree as to the property here involved. Later on the same day the property was sold to Harold J. Clark, (the appellee,) and another order was entered reinstating the decree as to that property. An order approving the sale was subsequently entered. Appellant then moved to set aside the order approving the sale insofar as it related to the property in question, and after a hearing that motion was denied. By this direct appeal, appellant seeks to review the order of the circuit court denying his motion to set aside the order approving the sale. It is unnecessary to pursue further the details of the controversy between the parties because the jurisdiction of this court upon direct appeal is challenged and we believe the challenge is well taken.
Jurisdiction is sought to be sustained upon the grounds that the State is interested and that the case is one relating to the revenue. Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 110, par. 199.
The first of the asserted grounds of jurisdiction is clearly untenable. The interest of the State which justifies a direct appeal to this court must be substantial and not nominal. A pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation is required. Keplinger v. Lord, 357 Ill. 571, 192 N.E. 549. No such interest is present. The tax liens foreclosed in this case were for the years 1934 to 1950, inclusive. During none of these years was a general property tax levied on behalf of the State of Illinois. The State can therefore have no possible financial interest in the outcome of this litgation.
Turning to the second ground upon which jurisdiction is predicated, it is settled that in order to give this court jurisdiction of a direct appeal on the ground that the cause is one relating to the revenue, the revenue must be involved directly, and not incidentally or remotely. Mandrake v. Schlaeger, 393 Ill. 610, 66 N.E.2d 858; Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society v. County of Cook, 381 Ill. 558, 46 N.E.2d 35; City of Chicago v. McDonough, 351 Ill. 200, 184 N.E. 322; People ex rel. Rexses v. Cermak, 317 Ill. 590, 148 N.E. 382; People v. Holten, 298 Ill. 225; Wells v. Rogers, 196 Ill. 292, 63 N.E. 651. The standard to be applied in determining the existence of jurisdiction has frequently been stated in these narrow terms: 'The question of revenue can be at issue only when some recognized authority of the State, or some of its political subdivisions authorized by law to assess or collect taxes, are attempting to proceed under the law, and questions arise between them and those from whom the taxes are demanded.' People ex rel. Charles DeLeuw & Co. v. Village of Midlothian, 370 Ill. 223, 224, 18 N.E.2d 233, 234. To the same effect, see Town of Thornton v. Winterhoff, 406 Ill. 113, 92 N.E.2d 163; Mandrake v. Schlaeger, 393 Ill. 610, 66 N.E.2d 858; City of Chicago v. McDonough, 351 Ill. 200, 184 N.E. 322; Reed v. Village of Chatsworth, 201 Ill. 480, 66 N.E. 217. Applying this test to the present case, jurisdiction fails because there is here no controversy as to the amount of taxes due and unpaid, and no issue between a taxpayer and a governmental body. Jurisdiction has also been sustained where the question was whether a particular sum of money was, or was not, the revenue of the State or one of its subdivisions. Heinrich v. Harrigan, 288 Ill. 170, 123 N.E. 309; People v. Holten, 259 Ill. 219, 102 N.E. 171. Again, the facts of this case fail to meet the standard, for there is here no dispute as to the status or the proper disposition of the proceeds of the sale.
As appellant points out, however, jurisdiction has several times been taken upon direct appeal from decrees entered in tax foreclosure actions. In some of these cases, as in People v. Taylorville Sanitary Dist., 371 Ill. 280, 20 N.E.2d 576, and People v. Anderson, 380 Ill. 158, 43 N.E.2d 997, the controversy concerned the status of the proceeds of a tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Waukegan v. Drobnick
...on direct appeal because the cause relates to revenue, it must relate directly thereto and not incidentally or remotely. People v. Smith, 413 Ill. 382, 109 N.E.2d 196; In re Estate of Kaindl, 411 Ill. 608, 104 N.E.2d With the abolition of the statutory right of appeal, and the constitutiona......
- Ross v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission
-
People v. Kamm
...of a serious jurisdictional question. (Reed v. Village of Chatsworth, 201 Ill. 480, 66 N.E. 217, as reaffirmed in People v. Smith, 413 Ill. 382, 109 N.E.2d 196, and City of Chicago v. Mardat, 25 Ill.2d 60, 182 N.E.2d 716.) Appellees cite a number of cases, in addition to Nash, but an examin......
-
People v. Smith
...so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on direct appeal. The cause, therefore, was transferred to this court. Reople v. Smith, 413 Ill. 382, 109 N.E.2d 196. The instant complaint was filed on January 22, 1952, by the People of the State of Illinois against Minnie E. Smith, Robert W. S......