Taylor v. People Ex Rel. Wm. Kelsey Reed.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8569,66 Ill. 322 |
| Parties | GEORGE TAYLORv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. WM. KELSEY REED. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county.
Mr. I. N. STILES, and Mr. JOHN LEWIS, for the appellant.
Mr. R. W. RICABY, for the appellee.
This was a proceeding by mandamus, instituted by appellee, in the circuit court of Cook county, against the comptroller of the city of Chicago, to compel the payment of a sum of money to appellee.
It appears, from the record, that the board of public works levied a special assessment on a lot belonging to the city. It not having been paid, the lot was advertised, and other steps taken, which resulted in a sale thereof for the satisfaction of the assessment, and it was purchased by one John Forsythe for $122.23, the amount of the assessment imposed upon this lot, and costs; that, on making the sale, the city collector gave to him a certificate of purchase of the premises; that afterwards, and before the time allowed for redemption had expired, Forsythe sold and assigned the certificate of purchase to relator; that, before the expiration of two years from the time the sale was made, the city comptroller directed the treasurer to transfer from the general fund of the city, $244.46, and credit the same to the personal redemption fund, and he received the treasurer's voucher therefor and filed the same in his office, and made an entry of the facts on the records of his office; that, subsequently, relator surrendered his certificate of purchase to the comptroller and demanded of him a warrant on the treasurer for double the amount of the purchase money paid at the sale of the lot, but he refused to draw such a warrant in favor of relator; that the money thus ordered to be transferred by the comptroller from the general to the personal redemption fund, can not be paid out of the treasury except on the warrant of the comptroller.
The court below having sustained a demurrer to the return, from which these facts appear, a judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, was rendered, and defendant brings the case to this court on appeal.
There is no express provision of the charter of the city which authorizes taxes or special assessments, for improvements, to be made on the real estate of the city, and from the very nature and the purpose of creating such a body, we can not imply such a power. The city or its officers would, in the absence of express authority, have no power to tax its property for the purpose of raising revenue for the city; nor can it impose such a burthen as an assessment to improve the streets. The charter has required the city, out of its treasury, to pay such portion of the expenses of such improvements as can not be levied on property benefited thereby, and in levying the assessment an estimate should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spring Creek Drainage Dist. v. Elgin, J.&E. Ry. Co.
...so. We certainly do not hold the courthouse square may be sold and the title passed to private parties or to the city. In Taylor v. People ex rel. Reed, 66 Ill. 322, we held, explaining Scammon v. City of Chicago, 42 Ill. 192, that in such case the amount should be paid out of the treasury.......
- Pennock v. Douglas Cnty.
-
Saline Branch Drainage Dist. v. Urbana-Champaign Sanitary Dist.
...Chicago Park Com'rs. v. City of Chicago, 152 Ill. 392, 38 N.E. 697;County of McLean v. City of Bloomington, 106 Ill. 209;Taylor v. People ex rel. Reed, 66 Ill. 322. When it has been judicially determined in the manner provided by law, in an appropriate proceeding, that benefits will accrue ......
-
Pennock v. Douglas County
...fails. Appellant's case is not within the principles of the case just cited. Pimental v. City of San Francisco, 21 Cal. 351, Taylor v. People, 66 Ill. 322, Louisiana Wood, 102 U.S. 294, 26 L.Ed. 153, and Chapman v. County of Douglas, 107 U.S. 348, also cited by appellant's counsel, are anal......