True v. Davis

• Citation: 22 N.E. 410,133 Ill. 522
• Parties: TRUE, City Treasurer, v. DAVIS, County Treasurer.
• Decision Date: 29 October 1889
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

133 Ill. 522

22 N.E. 410

TRUE, City Treasurer,

v.DAVIS, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 29, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county.

Petition by John R. True, as treasurer of the city of Lake View, for a writ of mandamus against George R. Davis as treasurer of Cook county, commanding him to turn over to the petitioner all taxes received by him on behalf of the city of Lake View. The court dismissed the petition on demurrer on the ground that the city of Lake View, having been annexed to the city of Chicago, had no longer any legal existence. Petitioner contended that the annexation was unconstitutional. The petitioner appeals.

John S. Cook and John N. Jewett, (Edward Maher, of counsel,) for appellant.

Francis Adams, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The public welfare, with in the territory over which the city of Chicago is now exercising municipal authority, so manifestly demands an early and final decision of the question discussed upon this record that we forbear all inquiry as to the appropriateness of the proceeding to present that question, and assume that it is properly before us for decision, and proceed to give our conclusion thereon, and enter judgment in the case, without that delay that might, but for this urgency, be desirable for a careful presentation of the reasons which have led to our conclusion.

The question may be stated thus: Does the prohibition of section 12, art. 9, of the constitution prevent the annexation of two or more cities, incorporated towns, or villages to each other, in the manner provided by the provisions of the act entitled ‘An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns, or villages, or parts of the same, to cities, incorporated towns, and villages,’ approved and in force April 25, 1889, (Laws 1889, p. 66, Rev. St. Ill., Ed. 1889, c. 24, § 211,) when such cities, incorporated towns, or villages are each indebted, and the indebtedness of one or more of them exceeds the limit named in that section? We answer, in our opinion it does not. The language of the section, so far as material to be now stated, is: ‘No * * * city * * * or other municipal corporation shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount * * * in the aggregate exceeding five per centum on the value of the taxable property therein; * * * and any * * * city* * * or other municipal corporation incurring any indebtedness as aforesaid shall, before or at the time of doing so, provide for the collection of a direct annual tax. * * *’ It thus appears that the duty to levy the tax is inseparable from the power to incur the debt; and so, in every case contemplated by the section, that duty must be performed by the same agency that incurs the debt; and this can only be the corporate authorities of the municipality who are empowered by its charter to create debts for and on its behalf, and levy taxes for their payment. But where two or more municipalities are annexed to each other, pursuant to the statute, and thus form one municipality in the place and stead of the several that are thus untied, it is manifest the resulting municipality does not become the owner of all the property of the several united municipalities, and bound to pay all of their debts, by virtue of any act of its municipal agencies, or of those of either of the untied municipalities, but by virtue alone of the statute, and a majority vote of the electors of each of the united municipalities, at an election held...