The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Hodges
| Citation | 113 Ill. 323 |
| Parties | THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.JOHN HODGES et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1885 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Alexander county; the Hon. DAVID J. BAKER, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. GREEN & GILBERT, for the appellant:
The jurisdiction of a court of equity to interfere by injunction, extends to all cases where a tax is assessed upon property not subject to taxation, and in like cases. Railroad Co. v. Code, 75 Ill. 591; Town of Lebanon v. Railroad Co. 77 Id. 539; Gage v. Evans, 90 Id. 569; Wilson v. Weber, 96 Id. 454; Lemont v. Stone Co. 98 Id. 94.
As to cases where the collection of a tax may be enjoined, see Vogt v. Ayer, 104 Ill. 383; Johnson v. Lyon, 106 Id. 64; Moore v. Wayman, 107 Id. 192; Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 108 Id. 11; Sivwright v. Pierce, Id. 133; Halstead v. Adams, Id. 609.
The case of Preston v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 625, does not decide that there is no remedy in equity.
Appellant was not bound to avail of the remedy at law afforded by section 97 of the Revenue act. It had a right to rely on its contract with the State that its property should be exempt from taxation.
Mr. JOHN M. LANSDEN, for the appellees:
Even conceding appellant's elevator was exempt from taxation, there was a complete remedy at law under section 97 of the Revenue law. The question has been settled by this court. Preston v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 625; Felsenthal v. Johnson, Id. 21.
Appellant failed to appear before the county board at its session in July, 1881, and failed also to make any objection to the rendition of judgment against its property in May, 1882. Adsit v. Lieb, 76 Ill. 198; People v. Big Muddy Iron Co. 89 Id. 116.
This is a bill in equity, to enjoin the collection of a tax assessed against a certain lot or tract of land occupied by a large grain elevator, in the city of Cairo.
The case made shows that the property is exempt from taxation under the provisions of appellant's charter, but the court below dismissed the bill upon the ground that appellant's remedy is at law,--and this, as is asserted, upon the authority of Felsenthal et al. v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 21, and Preston et al. v. Johnson, Id. 625. This was error. The effect of the decisions in the cases cited was misapprehended. We have held that a court of equity will not enjoin the collection of a tax unless the tax itself is unauthorized by law, or the tax is assessed upon property not subject to taxation, or the property upon which it is assessed is fraudulently valued at too high a rate; but in those cases the collection of the tax will be enjoined. Where the complaint is made that the local assessor has over-valued property, the owner must resort to the tribunals provided by the statute for review in such cases. A court of equity is not empowered to value property for taxation, but those boards afford ample remedy for all errors in valuation, and they must be resorted to for relief when complaint is made in that regard. Felsenthal et al. v. Johnson, supra, and Adsit v. Lieb et al. 76 Ill. 198, are illustrations.
Where an individual has property subject to taxation, he is chargeable with knowledge that it will be assessed for that purpose, and he must ascertain whether the valuation is satisfactory, and if it shall not be, apply to the statutory tribunals for relief. But where an individual has property that is exempt from taxation, he has a right to assume that the law will be observed, and he is not, therefore, required to take notice of its illegal assessment and valuation, nor to appear before the local tribunals in that regard. He is required to do no affirmative act to insure that his property shall be protected under the law exempting it; and when it is illegally assessed, as we have said, he may resort to a court of equity for an injunction. True, the 97th section of the Revenue law empowers the board of supervisors in counties under township organization, to hear and determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. McKibbin
...Loan & Trust Co., 89 Ill. 611;Town of Lemont v. Singer & Talcott Stone Co., 98 Ill. 94;Allwood v. Cowen, 111 Ill. 481;Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hodges, 113 Ill. 323;School Directors v. School Directors, 135 Ill. 464, 28 N.E. 49;Huling v. Ehrich, 183 Ill. 315, 55 N.E. 636;Condit v. Widmayer, ......
-
Ames v. Schlaeger, 27654.
...v. Minor, 22 Ill. 594, 595;Vieley v. Thompson, 44 Ill. 9;Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Ill. 11;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Hodges, 113 Ill. 323;Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. Kern, 147 Ill. 483, 35 N.E. 240;Heinroth v. Kochersperger, 173 Ill. 205, 50 N.E. 171;Knopf v. F......
-
Illinois Institute of Technology v. Skinner
...of a tax assessed against certain of its property, which was exempt from taxation by reason of the railroad's charter. (Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Hodges, 113 Ill. 323.) The trial court dismissed the bill upon the ground that the remedy at law was exclusive, under the authority of Preston......
-
Carle Foundation v. Illinois Dept. Revenue
...Illinois Institute of Technology v. Skinner, 49 Ill.2d 59, 62-63, 273 N.E.2d 371, 374 (1971), quoting Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Hodges, 113 Ill. 323, 326 (1885). Again, the only limitation that subsection (e) of section 23-25 (35 ILCS 200/23-25(e) (West 2006)) removes is the limitation e......