The Chicago v. Frary
| Decision Date | 30 April 1859 |
| Citation | 12 Peck 34,22 Ill. 34,1859 WL 6815 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,v.RODERICK B. FRARY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
22 Ill. 34
1859 WL 6815 (Ill.)
12 Peck (IL) 34
THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
RODERICK B. FRARY et al., Appellees.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
April Term, 1859.
The courts will not interfere by injunction, to prevent the collection of taxes, because there have been irregularities in the assessment.
THIS was a proceeding in chancery, by bill, asking an injunction against the treasurer to restrain him from levying, selling or distraining
[22 Ill. 35]
the property of the railroad company, for the taxes levied in Bureau county.The record in this case shows that the said railroad company duly filed a list and valuation of all their taxable property in Bureau county as required by law.
That at the annual meeting of the board of supervisors of said county, in September, the valuation of the items of “Fixed and stationary personal property,” of “The other personal property,” and of “The pro rata moveable property,” in said list and in the list of each railroad in the county, were increased forty per cent. each.
That at a session of said board, held in December of said year, the action of said board at the September term was reconsidered, and such action had that the items aforesaid of said list were each increased forty per cent., and the said items in the lists filed by other railroad companies in said county, were increased in different proportions.
That no notice of any of these changes was ever given to said company.
That subsequently, at a session of said board held in June, 1858, said company petitioned the board to abate said increased valuation.
That said board did at said June session, abate an inconsiderable portion of the same.
By the law of 1855, railroad companies are required to file a list of their taxable property in each county with the county clerk, who shall lay the same before the board of supervisors when they meet to equalize the assessment of property, which, by the acts of 1851 and 1853, must be at an annual meeting.
If the supervisors do not think it a full and fair statement of the company's taxable property and the value thereof, they may assess it in accordance with the rules prescribed for the assessment of such property.
The rules for the assessment of such property are laid down in section two of the Act of 1855, and prescribe a specific description of each lot or parcel of land and its value, the number of acres taken for right of way, stations, etc., the length of the main track and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Douglas v. City of Fargo
-
Second Nat Bank of Titusville, Pennsylvania v. Caldwell
... ... plaintiff is entitled to an injunction to restrain the ... collection thereof; Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; ... Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; State ... Railroad Tax Case, 92 U.S. 575; and I am of opinion that the ... bill ... [ M13 ] Marquette R. Co. v. Marquette, 35 ... Mich. 504 ... [ N14 ] Ottowa v. Walker, 21 Ill. 305; Chicago ... B. & Q. R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 24; Barnard v. Hoyt, 63 Ill ... 341; Litchfield v. Polk Co. 18 Iowa 70; Holland v. Baltimore, ... 11 Md. 186; Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo ... ...
-
Bistor v. McDonough
... ... 625]Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Philip L. Sullivan, judge.Watkins, Ten Hoor & Gilbert, of Chicago, for appellants.John A. Swanson, State's Atty., John E. Pedderson and Louis H. Geiman, all of Chicago (Hayden N. Bell, of Chicago, of counsel), for ... Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34;Schofield v. Watkins, 22 Ill. 66;Merritt v. Farris, 22 Ill. 303;Munson v. Minor, 22 Ill. 595;Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, 76 Am. Dec ... ...
-
Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. McKibbin
... ... Larkin, judge. George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Harry L. Arnold, or Rockford, of counsel), for appellant. Ashcraft & Ashcraft, of Chicago (Carroll J. Lord, Rufus D. Beach, and Alan E. Ashcraft, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee. GUNN, Justice. Appellee, Owens-Illinois Glass ... Probably the earliest clear exposition of the principle is to be found in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34, where, although an irregularity in the imposition of a tax was sought to be enjoined, it was held that the power of a court of equity to ... ...