Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. Hanberg

• Decision Date: 18 April 1907
• Citation: 80 N.E. 1012,226 Ill. 480
• Parties: SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO v. HANBERG.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

226 Ill. 480

80 N.E. 1012

SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO

v.HANBERG.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1907.

Error to Cook County Court; Dwight C. Haven, Judge.

Application by John J. Hanberg, county collector of Cook county, for judgment against various tracts of land situated within the limits of the Sanitary District of Chicago for unpaid general taxes to which the sanitary district filed objections. From a judgment for petitioner objector brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment in accordance with views expressed in the opinion.

Erasmus C. Lindley and John C. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Harry A. Lewis, Co. Atty., and William F. Struckmann, for defendant in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The county court of Cook county overruled objections of the Sanitary District of Chicago to the application of the county collector of said county for judgment against various tracts of land situated within the limits of said district for unpaid general taxes, and rendered judgment against the same. The writ of error in this case was sued out to review that judgment.

The ground of objection to the taxes was that the lands in question were public grounds, used exclusively for public purposes, and therefore exempt from taxation. The application for judgment included taxes which became a lien prior to the time that the sanitary district acquired title to the lands, and, upon the hearing, it was conceded that there was no valid objection to those taxes, and the judgment, for as it relates to them, is not questioned. A considerable part of the lands taxed were acquired for the purpose of widening and deepening the channel of the Chicago river, a navigable stream, and such lands are now principally under the waters of the river. The remainder of the lands are included in the right of way and channel of the district. The principal question is whether such lands which are used exclusively for drainage purposes, and are not leased to private individuals are subject to taxation.

The Constitution authorizes the Legislature to exempt the property of municipal corporations from taxation provided such exemption shall be by general law, and the only general law affecting this case is the provision of the statute exempting from taxation ‘all market houses, public squares, or other public grounds used exclusively for public purposes.’ The sanitary district is a municipal corporation (People v. Nelson, 133 Ill. 565, 27 N. E. 217), but the mere fact that property is owned by a municipal corporation does not exempt it from taxation. The provision of the Constitution plainly implies that property so owned is subject to taxation unless there is some law exempting it. Cook County v. City of Chicago, 103 Ill. 646;In re Swigert, 123 Ill. 267, 14 N. E. 32. It is also the rule that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be construed strictly, and that property claimed to be exempt must clearly appear to be within the terms of the statute. Under these rules we held in the case of Sanitary District of Chicago v. Martin, 173 Ill. 243, 50 N. E. 201,64 Am. St. Rep. 110, that lands of the sanitary district included in its channel or right of way outside of the district are not exempt from general taxes. The lands in that case were situated in Will county, and were not regarded as used exclusively for public purposes, for the reason that the channel of the district and its uses were solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district. The public outside of the district have no right to use the drain or channel for sewage, and that part of the channel is a mere conduit for carrying off the sewage from the drainage district. The only beneficial use of the public in that part of the channel is a mere easement of passage over the water for the purpose of navigation. It was...