Toman v. Belmont Radio Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 28037.,28037. |
| Citation | 57 N.E.2d 479,388 Ill. 11 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. TOMAN, County Collector, v. BELMONT RADIO CORPORATION. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of John Toman, County Collector, against Belmont Radio Corporation, wherein objections were made to certain appropriation items included in the annual budget of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago for the year 1940. From a judgment overruling the objections, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Cook County Court; Edmond K. Jarecki, Judge.
Scott, MacLeish & Falk, of Chicago (Robert S. Cushman and John J. O'Brien, Jr., both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., William J. Tuohy, Richard S. Folsom, and Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, all of Chicago (Joseph B. Fleming, Joseph H. Pleck, and Edward C. Caldwell, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This case presents questions as to the validity of certain appropriation items included in the annual budget of the board of education of the city of Chicago for the year 1940. The appropriations to which objections have been filed which will be given first consideration are set forth in the budget as follows:
The objection to each of said appropriations was that it was not sufficiently itemized. The county court overruled each of the objections.
The index to the budget code explains that the first number opposite each appropriation represents the fund from which the appropriation is to be paid, thus number 1 indicates it is an appropriation from the educational fund and number 3 from the building fund. The letter ‘S' which follows the fund number on the appropriations for materials, supplies, etc., and expenses of supervision, etc., is the symbol for the character of the appropriation, meaning it was to be expended for ‘Construction and Betterments.’ The letter ‘J’ opposite the fund number on the appropriation of $31,725 for ‘Supplies-WPA Projects' was the symbol for an appropriation for ‘Educational and Stationery Supplies.’ The number ‘700,’ following the letter the index key to the budget code would show that said items were appropriated from the building fund for ‘Construction and Betterments' which was a capital outlay, and the figure ‘700’ the function or the character of the expense for which the appropriation was made. It should be noted that under the heading ‘Capital Outlay’ in the ‘special accounts not appropriated for elsewhere’ there are 17 items including the ones for materials, supplies, etc. and expense of supervision, which relate to appropriations from the building fund for items such as fire damages to school buildings, bulletin boards, map rails, special assessments, modernizing toilets, new boilers, and other purposes of a character to make them proper charges against the building fund. The figure ‘1’ following the letter ‘J’ in the appropriation for supplies means ‘General Studies-Instructions.’
Section 135 1/2 of the School Law, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 122, par. 158a, prescribes the matters that the annual budget of a board of education shall contain. The pertinent parts are that it shall specify ‘(a) the several organization units, purposes, and objects for which appropriations are made, (b) the amount appropriated for each organization unit, purpose or object, and (c) the fund from or to which each amount appropriated is to be paid or charged.’
In determining whether the items in question are budgeted to meet these requirements, it is proper to consider the information that may be acquired by pursuing the subject through the index to the budget code. People ex rel. Lindheimer v. Hamilton, 373 Ill. 124, 25 N.E.2d 517;People ex rel. Gill v. White, 367 Ill. 415, 11 N.E.2d 809. The code thus interpreted as to the two items ‘3-s-700’ means that the board of education appropriated $298,000 from the building fund to pay for materials, supplies, etc. purchased as a capital outlay for construction and betterment of schools, the same to be expended on WPA projects, and that the other was to be expended in supervision of work carried on as WPA projects. Appellee says the latter appropriation of $31,725 would mean it was an appropriation from the educational fund, that it is for educational and stationery supplies to be used in conjunction with instruction in general studies taught in buildings or facilities constructed with the assistance of the Works Progress Administration. The general purpose of the first two appropriations is clearly designated as charges against the building fund. The budget also shows that they are capital outlay for the purchase of materials, supplies, etc., to be used in payment of the district's part of the cost of WPA projects. The purposes for which the Act of Congress creating the Works Progress Administration was designed and the method of operation under it are fully set forth in People ex rel. Toman v. Estate of Otis, 376 Ill. 112, 33 N.E.2d 202.
Appellant challenged the itemization of the appropriation on the grounds that materials, supplies, etc., are indefinite and may mean one or more of innumerable items. The fact that the budget furnishes the taxpayer the information that the appropriation of $298,000 is in connection with the WPA projects to be expended on school property and makes it payable from the building fund, and the further fact that it is a capital outlay for construction and betterments of such property is sufficient to designate the general purpose for which the appropriation is made.
It is well settled that it is not necessary to state each particular purpose for which a tax is levied where each purpose is properly embraced in one general designation. People v. Hamilton, 373 Ill. 124, 25 N.E.2d 517;People ex rel. Gill v. Schiek, 368 Ill. 353, 14 N.E.2d 223;People ex rel. Schaefer v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., 353 Ill. 518, 187 N.E. 443. It has been held that itemization requirements of a taxing statute must be accorded a practical and common-sense construction. People v. Estate of Otis, 376 Ill. 112, 33 N.E.2d 202;People ex rel. Dale v. Jackson, 272 Ill. 494, 112 N.E. 344. The facts disclosed by an examination of the budget show the general purpose for which the money was to be expended and that was sufficient. It is not necessary to give a detailed itemization of the material, supplies, etc., to be purchased.
Appellant relies upon cases such as People ex rel. Toman v. Advance Heating Co., 376 Ill. 158, 33 N.E.2d 206, 211, where it was held an appropriation of the city of Chicago ‘to be expended by various departments under the direction of the Mayor and City Comptroller in connection with WPA projects,’ was vague and indefinite. It will be observed that such appropriation was not for any particular purpose. It was to be expended for the purposes to be determined by the city officials named. That case is distinguishable from the case at bar.
In People ex rel. Lindheimer v. Hamilton, 373 Ill. 124, 25 N.E.2d 517, it was held a levy for ‘new buildings' need not be further itemized to show the amounts appropriated for buildings in process of construction. It was held that the budget statute did not require the board in making its appropriations to distinguish between buildings actually under contract and those about to be constructed.
The appropriation item considered in People ex rel. Toman v. Estate of Otis, 376 Ill. 112, 33 N.E.2d 202, was similar in principle to the one in question. It was for maintenance of plant materials, supplies and expenses and supervision of painting and decorating in conjunction with WPA projects, $250,000. With the aid of the information acquired by use of the index to the budget code it was held to be sufficiently itemized.
It is not necessary to repeat as to each of said items of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People ex rel. Ammann v. Wabash R. Co.
- People ex rel. McWard v. Wabash R. Co.
- Voss v. Chicago Park Dist.
-
Janecko v. Appleton Elec. Co.
...Berdelle v. Carpentier, 11 Ill.2d 295, 143 N.E.2d 53; Keser v. Corrie, 3 Ill.App.2d 209, 120 N.E.2d 880; People ex rel. Toman v. Belmont Radio Corporation, 388 Ill. 11, 57 N.E.2d 479. It was in the trial court that the picture we now examine was painted. It was in that court through appropr......