Vieley v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 30 April 1867 |
| Citation | 44 Ill. 9,1867 WL 5083 |
| Parties | MINARD T. VIELEYv.HUGH THOMPSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. CHARLES R. STARR, Judge, presiding.
The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of court.
Mr. CHARLES J. BEATTIE, for the appellant.
Messrs. COLLINS, PERRY & PAYSON, and Messrs. HARDING & FOSDICK, for the appellees. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was a bill filed in the Livingston Circuit Court by Minard T. Vieley against Hugh Thompson, Wm. R. Vealch and James H. Carter, to enjoin the collection of a bounty tax levied in the town of Pleasant Ridge. The bill alleges, that the town on the 3d day of February, 1865, contained ninety-five legal voters; that on that day forty-one of those voters came together and held an election, and voted for and against levying a bounty tax upon all the taxable property in the town; that there were thirty-nine votes for, and two against, levying the tax; that the supervisor, assessor and collector of the town determined, that a tax of three per cent should be levied on the assessment of 1865, and certified the levy of the same to the county clerk, and that he had extended the same in the collector's warrant; that the treasurer was about to enforce the collection of the same; that complainant was the owner of two hundred and eighty acres of land, upon which this tax had been levied.
The bill alleges, that there were no volunteers, drafted men or substitutes furnished by the town after the first day of February, 1865; that the supervisor, assessor and collector of the town issued bonds to each of the persons who voted in favor of the tax, payable in 1866, and to thirty-three of the same persons, payable in 1867, all bearing ten per cent; that they issued bonds to themselves in like manner; that the bonds were not issued for the purpose of paying any indebtedness of the town, nor to pay bounties to volunteers, substitutes or drafted men, who enlisted after the 2d day of February, 1865, nor for the purpose of paying bounties to volunteers, substitutes or drafted men, who had entered the service prior to that date, or for any legal or corporate purpose; but that the bonds were issued unlawfully and fraudulently for the purpose of paying certain sums of money formerly subscribed by the parties, to whom the bonds were issued to raise a fund, to procure substitutes to save themselves, and each of them, from being drafted into the army of the United States; that they severally gave such sums for their individual benefit, and not as a loan to the town; that it never received any consideration for the bonds, from any person receiving the same.
A temporary injunction was granted. A summons was issued and served on the defendants; they entered a motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill. On a hearing, the court below allowed the motion, and rendered a decree dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill. Suggestions of damages were filed, and the court assessed the same, and rendered a decree for $100 in favor of defendants, and awarded execution for its collection. To reverse that decree the case is brought to this court, and various errors are assigned.
Although irregular and unknown to correct chancery practice, a motion to dismiss a bill, interposed before answer, and acted upon by the court, must be held to have the same effect as a demurrer. If, then, it must be treated as a demurrer, the allegations of the bill must be considered as true. Was the complainant entitled to relief, on the facts stated in his bill, admitting them to be true?
The only law to which we have been referred, under which authority to issue these bonds can be claimed, is the act of 1865. Private Laws, vol. 1, p. 102. By the first section of that act, the various towns of the several counties named, are authorized to levy a tax of not more than three per cent on the taxable property, to pay bounties to volunteers, substitutes, and drafted men, who might thereafter enlist, or be drafted into the army. The second section declares that, when any ten legal voters of any town,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. McKibbin
...that the power of a court of equity to enjoin an illegal tax was an exception to the general rule. Following this decision, in Vieley v. Thompson, 44 Ill. 9, where an injunction was sought against the collection of an unlawful and unauthorized tax, the question of the jurisdiction of chance......
-
Ames v. Schlaeger, 27654.
...v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34;Schofield v. Watkins, 22 Ill. 66;McBride v. City of Chicago, 22 Ill. 574;Munson 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 C......
-
Drainage Com'rs Dist. No. 2 v. Kinney
...a multiplicity of suits. Cook County v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 35 Ill. 460;Drake v. Phillips, 40 Ill. 388;Vieley v. Thompson, 44 Ill. 9;Mt. Carbon Coal & Railroad Co. v. Blanchard, 54 Ill. 240;Swinney v. Beard, 71 Ill. 27;Deming v. James, 72 Ill. 78;Chicago, Burlington &......
-
People v. Sterling
...face of the bill or that the court has no jurisdiction is treated as a general demurrer, admitting all the facts well pleaded. Vieley v. Thompson, 44 Ill. 9;Hickey v. Stone, 60 Ill. 458;Emerson v. Western Union Railroad Co., 75 Ill. 176;Grimes v. Grimes, 143 Ill. 550, 32 N. E. 847. We are t......