The City of East St. Louis v. the Trustees of Sch..
| Decision Date | 31 May 1882 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUISv.THE TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. CHARLES T. WARE, Judge, presiding.
Mr. M. MILLARD, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. C. F. NOETLING, and Mr. R. A. HALBERT, for the defendants in error.
Mr. L. H. HITE, also for the defendants in error.
The city of East St. Louis embraces within its limits a part of town 2 north, in range 10 west, in St. Clair county, but does not embrace all of the territory in that township; and the city also embraces a part of town 2 north, in range 9 west, but does not embrace all of that township. The schools in both of these townships are all located within the city limits. The charter of the city, passed in 1869, gives it power, among other things, “to license, tax, regulate, prohibit and suppress dram-shops.” By another section it is provided that “one-half of all the money received into the city treasury from dram-shop licenses collected, shall be paid over, at least quarterly, to the treasurer of the school township No. 2 north, range 10 west, in St. Clair county, Illinois, by him to be apportioned to the several schools taught in said city, under the general school laws of this State, in the same mode and manner as interest on township school fund is now required to be apportioned and credited to the respective school districts,” and “liable to the order of the respective boards of school directors as other funds for the support of said schools of said city, respectively.” This is an action brought in the City Court of East St. Louis, by the treasurer of township No. 2 north, range 10 west, to recover one-half of certain moneys which it is conceded “were received into the city treasury from dramshop licenses collected.” Judgment was there rendered for the amount so received. To reverse this judgment the city brings the record here for review, upon a writ of error.
Counsel for the city, to reverse this judgment, insists:
First--All taxes or revenues must be expended for the equal benefit of all who contribute in paying them, otherwise there would be inequality in taxation.
Second--A tax or revenue collected under one corporate authority can not be applied in paying the debts and expenses of another, because all revenues must be raised for a corporate purpose, and that is not a corporate purpose.
Third--The legislature has no power to impose a corporate tax, or, what is the same thing, divert a corporate tax, even for a corporate purpose.
Without questioning or in any way passing upon the accuracy of the propositions thus presented, it is sufficient to say that they have no application to the case presented by this record. This is not a tax, in the sense in which that term is used in our constitution and statutes. In Craw v. Tolono, 96 Ill. 261, it was said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BHA Investments, Inc. v. State
... ... , and BHA submitted the transferred license to the City of Boise. BHA paid the transfer fee of $11,500.00 to the ... State, 11 Neb. 547, 10 N.W. 481 [(1881)]; East St. Louis v. Wehrung, 46 Ill. 392 [(1868)]; People v ... Louis v. Trustees of Schools, 102 Ill. 489, 1882 WL 10255, at *1 (Jan. 18, ... ...
-
Levy v. The State
... ... appellant was a resident of the city of Ft. Wayne, in this ... State, where he carried on a ... 533, 535, 60 N.E. 270; ... City of East St. Louis v. Trustees, etc., ... 102 Ill. 489, 40 Am. Rep ... ...
-
Levy v. State
...Co. v. State, 142 Ind. 428, 435, 41 N. E. 937;Judy v. Thompson, 156 Ind. 533, 535, 60 N. E. 270;City of East St. Louis v. Trustees of Schools, 102 Ill. 489, 40 Am. Rep. 606;Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 654; Fire Dept. v. Noble, 3 E. D. Smith, 440. The seventh objection is......
- Sager v. City of Silvis