Speight v. People Ex Rel. the County Collector.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 87 Ill. 595,1877 WL 9904 |
| Parties | WILLIAM SPEIGHT et al.v.THE PEOPLE ex rel. the County Collector. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. MARTIN R. M. WALLACE, Judge, presiding.
Application was made, in the court below, by the county collector of Cook county, for judgment against certain real estate, owned by different persons, for unpaid taxes for the year 1875 and prior years. Various objections were interposed by the owners, which were overruled by the court, and judgment was entered. Many of the owners appealed to this court, and the several records presenting the same questions are considered in one opinion.
Mr. EDWARD ROBY, for the appellants, among other questions presented, objected that the levy of the tax for school purposes by the city of Chicago was unauthorized by law, and void. The counsel insisted that the control of schools and levy of taxes therefor was not vested in the city council, but in the board of school directors, or other special corporations created by the school laws solely to take charge of the subject of education within their jurisdiction. The power, in this regard, given in the city charter of 1863, ceased to exist upon the city of Chicago becoming incorporated under the general law, in April, 1875, and thereafter the entire control of schools and taxation for school purposes was vested in a class of officers separate from the municipal government, as provided in the school law.
Mr. JOHN BORDEN, and Mr. JOHN P. WILSON, also, for the appellants.
Mr. FRANCIS ADAMS, Mr. JOHN M. ROUNTREE, Mr. WILLIAM H. HOLDEN, and Messrs. KRETZINGER & VEEDER, for the appellees.
Mr. CONSIDER H. WILLETT, for the Village of Hyde Park.
The questions raised upon these records have been passed upon in Law v. The People, 87 Ill., p. 385, Martin v. The People, 87 Ill., p. 524, and other cases decided at the present term; and we deem it unnecessary to enter upon any additional discussion.
The judgment for the city taxes, and taxes to entertain visitors, held invalid in Law v. The People, supra, must be reversed, and as to the other taxes the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed in part and in part reversed.
Subsequently, a petition for a rehearing was filed, on behalf of the appellants.
Mr. EDWARD ROBY, for the petitioners, cited:
It is implied from this section, that the court is required to try, consider fully, and by judicial ascertainment of the law to decide all cases submitted to it, and the opinion of each justice, either jointly with the others or separate, upon each issue submitted, and necessary to a decision of the case, shall be stated upon the records of the court. The law makers have deemed this necessary to the security of justice.
Beneath these sections each judge has subscribed this oath: “That I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, according to the best of my ability.” (Rev. Stat. 328, sec. 6.)
Only on these conditions, voluntarily assumed by oath, have the men who administer been let into the office of judges; the rights of suitors and the duties of judges are measured by the same law. Under that fundamental law these cases were presented, and the issues were made up, on objections urged against seven several kinds of taxes, and against the whole assessment, upon each of which judicial decision must be made, and definite opinions entertained by every judge sitting in the case, capable of being expressed in writing, before a lawful judgment can be rendered against the appellants, affirming the judgment of the court below.
We are unanimously of opinion that a rehearing in the present case should be denied.
Our views upon the principal questions have been elsewhere expressed, and we do not deem it necessary to repeat them here. If we have been so unfortunate, in the opinions filed, as to not make ourselves clearly understood, or to use satisfactory arguments in vindication of the conclusions reached, we have no reason to suppose that we would be more fortunate if we should repeat them here.
Without great injustice to other interests, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Foshee
... ... in the Circuit Court of Chilton County, in equity, filed by ... Hill J. Foshee, as plaintiff, ... Harris v ... State ex rel. Williams, 228 Ala. 100, 151 So. 858 ... The ... Smith, 4 Cal.2d ... 209, 47 P.2d 705; People v. Callopy, 358 Ill. 11, ... 192 N.E. 634; State v. Roy, ... Vaughn v. Harp. 49 Ark. 160, 4 S.W. 751; Speight ... v. People, 87 Ill. 595; Herndon v. Imperial [Fire] ... ...
-
Spinelli v. Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, Inc.
...submits, necessarily entails formulating a program of employment. To support its position, defendant cites Speight v. People ex rel. the County Collector (1877), 87 Ill. 595, wherein the supreme court construed article IV, section 22, of the Constitution of 1870. That provision prohibited t......
-
Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co.
... ... ERROR ... to District Court for Laramie County. RICHARD H. SCOTT, ... Prior ... to statehood, ... 1; Chandler v. Nash, 5 ... Mich. 409; State ex rel. v. Maynard, 14 Ill. 419; ... State v. Noble, 21 N. E., ... State ... (Ind.), 10 N. E., 98; People v. Board of Ed., ... 54 Cal. 377.) The power to decide ... 384; Columbus v ... Board, 65 Ind. 427; Speight v. People, 87 Ill ... 595; Campbell v. Board, 118 Ind ... ...
-
People ex rel. Cant v. Crossley
...as in pari materia. All laws on the subject of schools, in city charters or elsewhere, are necessarily parts of the school laws. Speight v. People, 87 Ill. 595.' The case of People v. Knopf, 183 Ill. 410, 56 N. E. 155, is in line with the previous cases on this subject. The situation there ......