{ "id": 5444328, "name": "INOLEX CORPORATION, Appellee, v. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Inolex Corp. v. Rosewell", "decision_date": "1978-05-16", "docket_number": "No. 49842", "first_page": "198", "last_page": "203", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 198" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "411 Ill. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5312631 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 Ill. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5304698 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/385/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 Ill. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5437913 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/134/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5282463 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/22/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ill. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5634948 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/231/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5403894 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5406480 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ill. 2d 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2861276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5643026 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2970994 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/62/0540-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 7053, "ocr_confidence": 0.848, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.262994989983054e-07, "percentile": 0.7828442893774888 }, "sha256": "e00d23c6fd679387c901315c8c8e497e6682bbea7180362380c6416ec5253d95", "simhash": "1:8afaefe1a58fcc52", "word_count": 1161 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:17.567922+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "INOLEX CORPORATION, Appellee, v. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants, Edward J. Rosewell, county treasurer and ex officio county collector, Thomas M. Tully, county assessor, Stanley T. Kusper, county clerk, and Harry H. Semrow and Seymour Zaban, commissioners of the board of appeals of Cook County, appealed from the injunction order entered by the circuit court of Cook County upon allowance of the motion of plaintiff, Inolex Corporation, for summary judgment on count II of its amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed (50 111. App. 3d 600), and we allowed defendants\u2019 petition for leave to appeal.\nThe pleadings are adequately described in the opinion of the appellate court and will be reviewed here only to the extent necessary to discuss the issues. It was alleged in the amended complaint that plaintiff leases a parcel of land owned by Northwestern University; that in November 1974 it received from the defendant county collector real estate back-tax bills for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, purportedly assessed pursuant to section 26 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, par. 507); that the \u201cattempted valuations and assessments to plaintiff\u201d of the taxes were void for failure to comply with sections 97, 104 and 221 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, pars. 578, 585, 702); and that no notice was given plaintiff as required by the provisions of sections 97, 121 or 221 of the Revenue Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, pars. 578, 602, 702).\nPlaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court denied defendants\u2019 motion, allowed plaintiff\u2019s motion, and entered an order which provides that defendants \u201care hereby permanently enjoined from assessing, levying or collecting the said void back taxes from the plaintiff.\u201d It also provided that \u201cNothing in this order shall be deemed to adjudicate the right of the assessor to levy a lawful back tax for all the years involved in this litigation for the properties involved herein.\u201d\nThe injunction order was entered by the circuit court prior to our decision in North Pier Terminal Co. v. Tully (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 540. The appellate court, although recognizing that North Pier Terminal Co. was dispositive of plaintiff\u2019s contentions concerning defendants\u2019 failure to comply with sections 97 and 125 of the Revenue Act, held that the failure to give proper notice of the assessments in violation of sections 97, 121 and 221 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, pars. 578, 602, 702) was \u201ca recognized basis for equitable jurisdiction\u201d (50 Ill. App. 3d 600, 602) and that the circuit court did not err in ordering the injunction.\nDefendants contend that plaintiff\u2019s failure to include in its motion for summary judgment the alleged failure of the defendant assessor to give the statutory notice waived the point. Plaintiff asserts that defendants did not brief and argue the question of the alleged waiver before the appellate court and may not, therefore, raise the question in this court. The proper adjudication of the issue presented in this appeal requires our consideration of the effect of the alleged failure to give notice, and we do not therefore further consider or discuss the question of waiver. Hux v. Raben (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 223.\nDefendants contend that the injunction order must be reversed for the reason that the opinion in North Pier Terminal Co. v. Tully (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 540, \u201cis squarely on all fours with the case at bar.\u201d Plaintiff contends that \u201cstatutorily required notice and opportunity to be heard are \u2018jurisdictional,\u2019 and that a tax without such notice or opportunity for hearing is \u2018unauthorized by law.\u2019 \u201d Although our opinion in North Pier Terminal Co. is controlling with respect to the issues concerning the addition of the assessment of the omitted property to the assessment books following their certification by the assessor and the board of appeals, there remains the question whether the alleged failure to give notice of the assessment was a sufficient basis for granting equitable relief.\nSection 314 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 120, par. 795) in pertinent part provides:\n\u201cA failure to give any notice required by this Act shall not impair or affect the validity of any assessment as finally made.\u201d\nThe rule here applicable is that the collection of taxes will be enjoined only where the tax is either unauthorized by law or levied upon exempt property. (La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 318; Clarendon Associates v. Korzen (1973), 56 Ill. 2d 101.) We have considered the authorities cited by plaintiff and find apposite here the following language from North Pier Terminal:\n\u201cWe emphasize, however, that we are discussing only the power of the assessor to function. We are not deciding the validity of the tax as levied on the assessments in question. The defects of which the plaintiffs complain are essentially procedural irregularities in the assessment process which, while they may have a bearing on the question of the validity of the taxes levied, do not establish the lack of authority of the assessor to act. Thus, as noted in the cases cited below, the taxes are not \u2018unauthorized by law.\u2019\nThis court has long held that if \u2018officers authorized to make the assessment make it, then mere irregularities in the proceedings under which it was made cannot give a court of chancery jurisdiction . to restrain its collection. \u2019 Gray v. Board of School Inspectors, 231 Ill. 63, 74. See also Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34; Reynolds v. Milk Grove Special Drainage District, 134 Ill. 268; Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. McKibbin, 385 Ill. 245; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tierney, 411 Ill. 421.\nWe conclude that the taxes involved in this case are not \u2018unauthorized by law\u2019 and that a basis for equitable relief as defined in Clarendon is not present. Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law by way of paying the taxes under protest and filing objections to the application for judgment. The trial court therefore erred in granting equitable relief.\u201d 62 Ill. 2d 540, 548-49.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts are reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook County with directions to dismiss count II of plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint, and for further proceedings under count I.\nJudgments reversed; cause remanded, with directions.\nMR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., Deputy State\u2019s Attorney, and Henry A. Hauser and Michael F. Baccash, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellants.", "Herman Smith and Donald I. Resnick, of Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 49842.\nINOLEX CORPORATION, Appellee, v. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1978.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied September 29, 1978.\nKLUCZYNSKI, J., took no part.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., Deputy State\u2019s Attorney, and Henry A. Hauser and Michael F. Baccash, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellants.\nHerman Smith and Donald I. Resnick, of Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0198-01", "first_page_order": 210, "last_page_order": 215 }