Warren v. Cook

• Decision Date: 25 January 1886
• Citation: 116 Ill. 199,5 N.E. 538
• Parties: WARREN v. COOK and others.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

116 Ill. 199

5 N.E. 538

WARREN

v.COOK and others.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 25, 1886.

Error to Jefferson.

C. H. Patton, for plaintiff.

C. H. Burton, for defendants in error.

SHOPE, J.

The plaintiff in error filed his bill in the circuit court of Jefferson county to enjoin defendant Cook from taking out a tax deed to a certain town lot in Mount Vernon, which Cook had purchased at a tax sale in June, 1883, for the taxes of the years 1875 to 1882, inclusive. These taxes were alleged in the bill to have been paid by plaintiff in error before judgment therefor in May, 1883, under which the property was sold. The bill also charged that the county tax included in the tax liens for those years was at the rate of $1 on each $100 valuation, in violation of the constitution and statutes of the state, and also that the tax judgment was unlawfully and wrongfully erased, changed, and raised in amount, without the knowledge of plaintiff in error, after the judgment had been signed by the judge, and after the adjournment of the court On hearing on bill, answer, replication, and proofs the circuit court dismissed the bill, and plaintiff in error excepted, and now brings the record here, and asks a reversal of that decree.

It appears by the evidence that at the May term, 1883, of the county court of Jefferson county, upon the application for judgment for taxes against delinquent lands and lots, the plaintiff in error appeared by his attorney, and filed exceptions to the application for judgment as to this lot. It does not appear definitely what the objections filed were, but it is substantially conceded by both parties that they related to the method of computing the penalties, interest, and costs, and ascertaining the amount of taxes due. Afterwards the objections filed were withdrawn, and judgment, as shown by the proof and by recitation in the judgment itself, was rendered by agreement. Upon this judgment, the sale complained of was made. The authority of the attorney of plaintiff in error to appear in the county court on behalf of plaintiff in error is not repudiated, but it is contended that he had no authority to agree to a judgment, etc. The same attorney had appeared in 1881 and 1882, and successfully resisted judgment for taxes against the same lot, at the instance of plaintiff in error, and had, at least, a general authority to appear, and contest the entry of judgment in the county court upon the application of the collector for judgment in 1883 against the lot in question for taxes. Under that authority he did appear and file objections for and on behalf of plaintiff in error. This was an entry of appearance of plaintiff in error, and gave the county court jurisdiction of his person.

It is now claimed that there were other objections to the rendition of judgment, not urged or included in those filed before the county court, one of which is that a portion of the taxes had been paid before judgment. Another is that portions of the county tax were illegal, as stated in the bill. If this was true, he should have made such defenses before the county court. He was in court, with full right to interpose any defense that existed. There is no pretense that his attorney did not fairly represent him, or that he was overreached, or any fraud or deceit practiced upon him. It is not material whether the attorney was authorized to have judgment entered by agreement or not. If he was so authorized, his act is conclusive of the rights of plaintiff in error; if not so authorized, the plaintiff in error can have no standing in equity if, through his own laches, he failed to make the proper defense in the law court. Mix v. People, 4 N. E. Rep. 783, opinion filed January, 1885, and authorities cited. Judgments rendered in...