Standard Oil Co. v. Bollinger

• Decision Date: 20 December 1929
• Docket Number: No. 19550.,19550.
• Citation: 169 N.E. 236,337 Ill. 353
• Parties: STANDARD OIL CO. v. BOLLINGER, Director of Finance et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

337 Ill. 353

169 N.E. 236

STANDARD OIL CO.

v.BOLLINGER, Director of Finance et al.

No. 19550.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1929.

Suit by the Standard Oil Company against Albert C. Bollinger, Director of Finance of the State of Illinois, and others. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Charles G. Briggle, judge.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and Montgomery S. Winning and S. S. Du Hamel, both of Springfield, for appellants.

Louis L. Stephens, Harry A. Daugherty, and Hicks & Folonie, all of Chicago, for appellee.

DE YOUNG, J.

The Standard Oil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Indiana and authorized to transact business in this state, filed in the circuit court of Sangamon county an amended and supplemental bill of complaint to enjoin the director of finance and other executive and administrative state officers from depositing in the state treasury a certain sum of money and from negotiating certain checks remitted by the complainant to the department of finance in payment of the motor fuel tax imposed by the act of 1927. The bill further askeed that the money be refunded and the checks returned. From a decree in substantial conformity with the prayer of the bill this appeal is prosecuted.

The allegations of the bill are that the complainant is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of motor fuel; that in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled, ‘An act to impose a license tax on the sale and use of motor fuel,’ effective July 1, 1927 (Laws of 1927, p. 758), the complainant was licensed to act as a distributor of motor fuel in this state; that complying with section 4 of the act, complainant, between the 1st and 20th days of February, 1928, made returns under oath to the department of finance upon forms furnished by its director showing the quantity of motor fuel manufactured, received, sold, and distributed during the month of January, 1928; that at the time of making these returns, complainant paid, as a tax to the department of finance, 2 cents upon each gallon of motor fuel sold or used by it during the month of January, less 3 per cent., deducted as an allowance for evaporation and other loss; that such payments, five in number, aggregated $224,873.16; that the complainant, through certain branch offices, made additional returns for the same period accompanied by checks aggregating $80,693.33; that prior to the presentation of these checks the banks on which they were drawn were notified not to honor them; that the notices were observed and that the checks are held by the director of the department of finance; that each of the foregoing remittances was accompanied by a written protest that the act by which the tax was imposed violated certain sections of the state and federal Constitutions; that the payments were made under duress and the fear of the infliction of the penalties prescribed by the act, and that the tax in effect takes private property without due process of law and denies the equal protection of the law; that on February 24, 1928, this court, in the case of Chicago Motor Club v. Kinney, 329 Ill. 120, 160 N. E. 163, held the Motor Fuel Tax Act of 1927 void; that the money and checks described are held in trust for the complainant; that the state has no interest therein or right thereto and that they ought to be paid and delivered to the complainant.

The defendants answered the bill. By their answer they averred that no threat to enforce the penalties of the Motor Fuel Tax Act of 1927 was made against the complainant, its agents, or employees; that the complainant, while protesting to the department to which it paid the tax that the act under which it was collected was void, yet represented to the public and to its customers that the act was in force and effect; that the complainant collected from its...