Pidgeon v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1864 |
| Citation | 36 Ill. 249,1864 WL 3138 |
| Parties | GEORGE S. PIDGEON et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
John Dougherty, for plaintiffs in error.
M. Bartley and W. H. Green, for defendants in error.
This was an application to the Pulaski county court for judgment for taxes assessed against lands which were returned delinquent by the collector. A defense was made, but it was disallowed, and judgment was rendered for the sale of the lands for the payment of the taxes, interest and costs, remaining unpaid. An appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, where a trial was had, resulting in a judgment against appellants, and execution was awarded for its collection; to reverse which the cause is brought to this court. And it is assigned for error that the court rendered a personal judgment and awarded execution.
The thirty-third section of the revenue act of February 12th, 1853 (Scates' Comp., 1075), declares, that it shall be the duty of the collector to file a list of delinquent lands and town lots, with the clerk of the county court, at least five days before the commencement of the term at which application for judgment is to be made. The thirty-fifth section requires the court to examine the list, and if defense or objection be made by any person interested in any such lands, the court shall hear and determine the same, and pronounce judgment as the right of the case may be, and shall direct the clerk to enter an order for the sale of such real property. The form of the order is given in this section, and by it judgment is rendered against the several tracts of land, for the amount due upon each, and an order follows for the sale of the several tracts, or so much thereof as will pay the amount due thereon. This section requires the judgment to be rendered against the lands, and no provision is found in the act authorizing a judgment against the person. The proceeding is in rem, and the statute has only conferred a special authority upon the county court, and it must be pursued.
When the cause was removed to the circuit court, the practice or the jurisdiction was not thereby changed. In that court the trial must be de novo, and in all respects as if it was in the county court. By the appeal, a proceeding in rem is not changed to one in personam. It was the duty of the circuit court to hear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gage v. Busse
-
Smith v. Nelson
... ... the description of the land in question. Brown v ... Walker, 11 Mo.App. 229; Olcott v. State, 10 ... Ill. 481; Pedgrove v. State, 36 Ill. 249; Lowe ... v. Ekey, 82 Mo. 286. (3) Vagueness in ... ...
-
Brown v. Walker
...each lot, and because it is in the aggregate instead of severalty on each particular lot.-- Olcott v. The State, 10 Ill. 481; Pidgeon v. The State, 36 Ill. 249. A tax-deed embracing several distinct tracts of land in its recital, and that two or more separate lots were sold en masse for a g......
- Gage v. Bailey