Walser v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 01 November 1895 |
| Citation | 160 Ill. 272,43 N.E. 346 |
| Parties | WALSER et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Bill by J. J. Walser and others against the board of education of school district No. 1 and others. From a judgment (57 Ill. App. 288) affirming a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Crafts & Stevens, for appellants.
Henry R. Pebbles, for appellees.
Five residents and taxpayers of school district No. 2, township 39 N., range 13 E., Cook county, Ill., with the board of education of that district, exhibited their bill in the circuit court of Cook county, in behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of that district, making defendants the board of education of district No. 1 of the same township, and the treasurer of the latter township. The facts alleged in the bill, briefly stated, are that, by mistake of the county clerk of Cook county, certain described real estate in fact located in district No. 2 was entered upon the collector's book of 1890 as lying and being in district No. 1, where the same was taxed, and school taxes to the amount of $2,195.90 were collected and paid over to the treasurer of the latter district, and paid out on orders of that district. The taxpayers who owned the above land had no knowledge of the mistake so made by the county clerk, and, knowing that their land was liable to taxation for school purposes in school district No. 2, paid their tax when called upon by the collector, supposing that they were paying school tax for said district No. 2, and did not discover or know of the mistake until there had been collected by the collector all the tax on said land, amounting to the sum of $2,195.90, and paid over to the treasurer to the credit of said school district No. 1. As soon as the error was discovered, demand was made upon the board of education of said school district No. 1 for a return of the money so wrongfully received by it, which demand it refused to comply with. The defendants filed general demurrers to the amended bill of complaint, which demurrers the court sustained, and entered an order dismissing the bill and amended bill for want of equity. On appeal to the appellate court for the First district, the decree was affirmed, and from the judgment of affirmance this appeal is prosecuted.
By the provisions of the act in relation to schools, it became the duty of the proper officers of the district to levy a tax upon the property in the district, and certify the same to the clerk, whose duty it was to compute and extend the tax on the taxable property of each person in the district. Had no mistake been made by the clerk, the tax on the property in school district No. 2 would have been at the rate of about 1.88 per cent., as appears by the averments of the bill; but the rate extended, by reason of such mistake, was slightly more than 1.99 per cent., and the amount levied on the property in district No. 1, as extended, was at the rate of about 3.29 per cent. The actual amount extended on the books, and thus collected by the treasurer of district No. 1, on property belonging to district No. 2, was about $2,195.90, while if the tax, as assessed in district No. 2, had been extended on that property, there would have been extendedand collected for district No. 2 about the sum of $1,255. The sum actually collected from the owners of the property by reason of the mistake of the clerk was about $940 more than would have been collected had no such mistake been made. The bill seeks to recover the amount actually collected by the treasurer of district No. 1 on the property belonging to district No. 2, included in No. 1 by the mistake of the clerk.
Even conceding a right of recovery, under no circumstances could a right exist in district No. 2 to collect a greater sum than it would have collected had there been no mistake by the clerk. The full amount of the levy made by the board of education of district No. 2 was computed, extended, and collected on the property in the district other than that described on the collector's books as in district No 1. No part of the levy, as made by the district, is unpaid. No right exists to recover more than the amount levied, and to hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cincinnati, I.&W. Ry. Co. v. Moffett
...of the township, but paid the assessment in full. To sustain its position appellant relies upon the cases of Walser v. Board of Education, 160 Ill. 272, 43 N. E. 346,31 L. R. A. 329, and Wabash Railroad Co. v. People, 196 Ill. 606, 63 N. E. 1084. In the Walser Case a suit was brought by one......
-
Otis v. People ex rel. Raymond
...Chicago, 61 Ill. 439;Swanston v. Ijams, 63 Ill. 165;Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. People, 136 Ill. 660, 27 N. E. 200;Walser v. Board, 160 Ill. 272, 43 N. E. 346,31 L. R. A. 329. In Walser v. Board, supra, on page 276, 160 Ill., and page 347, 43 N. E., it is said: ‘Money paid voluntarily by one......
-
Central Ill. Public Service Co. v. Thompson
...a statute subsequently found to be unconstitutional. See: Yates v. Royal Ins. Co., 200 Ill. 202, 65 N.E. 726; Walser v. Board of Education, 160 Ill. 272, 43 N.E. 346, 31 L.R.A. 329; Otis v. People ex rel. Raymond, 196 Ill. 542, 63 N.E. 1053; Board of Education v. Toennigs, 297 Ill. 469, 130......
-
Barrows v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co.
...151 F. 461 BARROWS v. MUTUAL RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. No. 1,294.United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.January ... 947; Lamson v. Boyden, 57 Ill.App. 232; Walser ... v. Board of Education, 160 Ill. 272, 43 N.E. 346, 31 ... ...