{
  "id": 847208,
  "name": "W. A. Havemeyer & Co. v. The Board of Review of Cook County",
  "name_abbreviation": "W. A. Havemeyer & Co. v. Board of Review",
  "decision_date": "1903-04-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "446",
  "last_page": "447",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. 446"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "190 Ill. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3243781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/190/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3225018
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0276-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 3467,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.615,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3320618306318245
    },
    "sha256": "bdbccd08ea8fa1d0cdb4c0b90c53c942bac41a0f439dd9cd0c173a52640708e7",
    "simhash": "1:dacbf1abe239d410",
    "word_count": 599
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:14.201688+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. Havemeyer & Co. v. The Board of Review of Cook County."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Hand\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nProm an examination of this record we are unable to determine upon what said increased assessment was based, the record being entirely barren of information upon that subject.\nThis court has repeatedly held that the right of appeal from the decision of a board of review is restricted to cases in which it is claimed the property assessed is exempt from taxation. (Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Co. v. People, 185 Ill. 276; Dutton v. Board of Review, 188 id. 886.) If it be the claim of the appellants that the increased assessment was upon property exempt from taxation, they should have so framed the record as to make it appear upon what property said increased assessment was based, so that the court can determine whether or not said property was exempt from taxation. Siegfried v. Raymond, 190 Ill. 424.\nThere being no question in this record presented to us for decision other than the mere question of claimed over-valuation, \u2014 a question over which this court has no jurisdiction, \u2014 the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Hand"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0 Prank P. Reed, for appellants.",
      "H. J. Hamlin, Attorney General, and Prank L. Shepard, for the Board of Review."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. Havemeyer & Co. v. The Board of Review of Cook County.\nOpinion filed April 24, 1903.\n1. Taxes \u2014 restriction on right of appeal from decision of hoard of review. The right of appeal from the decision of a board of review is restricted to cases in which it is claimed that property exempt from taxation has been assessed.\n2. Same \u2014 -party must show upon what property increased assessment was made. One appealing from the decision of a board of review in increasing his assessment must show in the record upon what property such increased assessment was based, in order that it may be determined whether such property was exempt.\nAuditor\u2019s certificate for review of assessment.\nThis is an appeal by W. A. Havemeyer & Co. from a decision of the board of review of Cook county, upon the certificate of the Auditor of Public Accounts, under the provisions of section 35 of the Revenue act of 1898.\nIt appears from the certificate of the board of review transmitted to us by the Auditor, that W. A. Havemeyer & Co., of the city of Chicago, filed a schedule with the board of assessors of Cook county on the 18th day of April, 1902, in which they listed three safes at $100, office furniture at $150 arid moneys in bank at $1112.60, making a total of $1362.60; also 768 cases of sugar, valued at $6220.60; which was stated to be the property of the American Sugar Refining Company, a New Jersey corporation, and which was held by said W. A. Havemeyer & Co. in the original packages in warehouse in Chicago as agent for said corporation, for sale in Illinois and other States, which it was claimed was exempt from taxation; that the board of assessors, not being satisfied with said schedule, raised the personal property assessment of W. A. Havemeyer & Co. to $55,000; that W: A. Havemeyer & Co. appeared before the board of review and filed a protest against said increased assessment; that they were given a hearing before said board; that W. A. Havemeyer, one of the members of said firm, testified that his firm had no property in said county subject to taxation except that shown by the schedule filed by the firm with the board of assessors; that the board of review refused to change said increased assessment and confirmed the same.\n\u25a0 Prank P. Reed, for appellants.\nH. J. Hamlin, Attorney General, and Prank L. Shepard, for the Board of Review."
  },
  "file_name": "0446-01",
  "first_page_order": 446,
  "last_page_order": 447
}