{
  "id": 5350157,
  "name": "William Scully v. The People of the State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scully v. People",
  "decision_date": "1882-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. 349"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425995
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/40/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Cal. 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2337055
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/51/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N. Y. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Wall. 428",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "301"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 5546,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.541362987340307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6729405845668994
    },
    "sha256": "7801af5c18bf3d58a2a742cf33ddec5d8f0c66d41f3ecbf5d2968c6674b1efe1",
    "simhash": "1:9091014c17daef54",
    "word_count": 1026
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:57.202414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Scully v. The People of the State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a suit instituted by attachment, against William Scully, for the recovery of $1427, as personal property taxes for the years 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1880, appearing upon the collector\u2019s book of East Lincoln township, in Logan county, to be due and unpaid. There was a recovery by the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nThe facts of the case are these: William Scully was a resident of England, and owned a number of farms in Logan county, in this State, which he leased through agents residing in Logan county. The rent under these leases was payable in cash, on the first day of January in each year. The assessor, in making his assessments for the years in question, assumed that on the first day of March, in each year, the leases were made, running for one or more years, and estimated that from March 1 to May 1 two months\u2019 rent had accrued upon the lands, and, upon that basis, that on the first day of May there was two months\u2019 rent accrued but not due, the assessor assessed, during the several years in question, this two months\u2019 rent, from March 1 to May 1, in each year, as a credit. It is the taxes levied upon these assessments which are the subject of this suit. It is the provision of our statute, that personal property shall be listed by the assessor with reference to the quantity held or owned on the first day of May of each year.\nWe are of opinion the claim here asserted is the taxation of something which was included in the taxation of the lands. The lands themselves were all the while taxed. In the valuation of the land itself for taxation there would be included in it, as an element, the value of the use of the land. The rent is but a representative of the use of the land, and taxing such rent against the owner of the land before it has accrued due, and during the same time the land is taxed, appears to be taxing a thing which was covered by the taxation of the land. Bent is defined as a certain profit issuing yearly out of land; and while accruing due to the land owner, is it not embraced in such year\u2019s valuation, assessment and taxation of the land? Had the owner himself personally used and enjoyed the land, it would not be thought such use and enjoyment would be taxable aside from, and in addition to, the land. Bent arrear is a chose in action, and would be taxable as a credit; but rent to grow due is a part of the land,\u2014is an incident to it,\u2014and passes as such to a grantee, by a grant of the land. On the leases made on the first day of March, the rent payable on the first day of January after, there had no rent accrued due on May 1, two months after the making of the leases, but it had to grow due, and would not become due until January. Had the lessor, for, say, the last month of December, before the rents became due, evicted the lessees from the premises, then there' would have been no rent at all due and collectible under the leases.\nBeing of opinion that the two months\u2019 rents in question were not properly taxable, it becomes unnecessary to consider other questions which have been raised. The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.\n\u25a0Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Blinn & Hoblitt, for the appellant:",
      "Mr. B. B. Forrest, State\u2019s Attorney, for the People:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Scully v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nFiled at Springfield September 28, 1882.\n1. Taxation\u2014rents of land, as distinguished from the lemd itself. Bent arrear is a chose in action, and taxable as a credit, but rent to grow due is a part of the land,\u2014an incident to it, passing as such to a grantee,\u2014and is therefore not subject to taxation against the owner of the land which is also taxed. The taxation of rents before due, is the taxing of something included in the taxation of the land.\n2. An owner of lands leased the same, for several years in succession, for a cash rent, payable on the first day of January in each year, the terms commencing on the first day of March in the year. The assessor, through a period of years, assessed him with two months\u2019 rent,\u2014that is, from March 1 to the first day of May,-\u2014as having accrued, though not due. The taxes not having been paid on these assessments, suit was brought against the owner to recover a personal judgment for the same: Held, that no recovery could be had, and the judgment below for the taxes was reversed.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Logan county; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Blinn & Hoblitt, for the appellant:\nThe leases executed by William Scully to tenants, before time of payment of rent, are not the subject of taxation under the revenue laws of this State, because the real estate having been taxed, the income from the real estate, before it is earned or collected, can not be assessed for taxation, and because neither the residence of the owner of the leases nor the situs of the personal property was in this State. Sangamon and Morgan R. R. Co. v. County of Morgan, 14 Ill. 165; Mills v. Thornton, 26 id. 301; Irwin v. New Orleans, St. Louis and Chicago R. R. Co. 94 id. 108; St. Louis v. Ferry Co. 11 Wall. 428; Hoyt v. Commissioners, 23 N. Y. 228; People v. Hibernia Bank, 51 Cal. 243.\nMr. B. B. Forrest, State\u2019s Attorney, for the People:\n\u2022 Bents to become due, payable in cash at a fixed period, are credits, and as such are assessable property.\nAgents located in this State, conducting and carrying on a permanent business, are required to list to the assessor all credits belonging to their principals. Div. 2 of see. 6, and secs. 9, 19, Revenue Laws of 1872; Board, etc. v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 197."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 349,
  "last_page_order": 352
}