{ "id": 5597825, "name": "In re Assessment of the Northwestern University", "name_abbreviation": "In re Assessment of Northwestern University", "decision_date": "1903-12-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "64", "last_page": "68", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 Ill. 64" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "99 U. S. 309", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3373764 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/99/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5537489 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/174/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 U. S. 662", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11729137 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/188/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Wall. 619", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3451156 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/74/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2921497 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/123/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5240052 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/57/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2877792 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2892325 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/117/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ill. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2679897 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/80/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 U. S. 309", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3373764 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/99/0309-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 413, "char_count": 8165, "ocr_confidence": 0.61, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1711000377873417e-07, "percentile": 0.771229712620311 }, "sha256": "b926787abd4481d6b3d909b218640c23bcd32fd8ff1da69c6ec6ebccea4ad0c7", "simhash": "1:c84f4920796375ec", "word_count": 1375 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:32.167718+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re Assessment of the Northwestern University." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hand\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn the case of Northwestern University v. People, 80 Ill. 333, the question of the constitutionality of the amendment of 1855 to the charter of the university was presented to this court for consideration. That case was a suit between the same parties and presenting the same issues involved here. This court then held the,amendment was in conflict with the constitution of 1848, in so far as it exempted property .from taxation which was not itself used directly in aid of the purposes for which the corporation was created but which was held for profit, merely, although the profits were to be devoted to the proper purposes of the corporation. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States, (Northwestern University v. People, 99 U. S. 309,) where the judgment of this court was reversed, that court holding that the amendment of 1855 was a valid contract between the State and the university, the obligation of which could not be impaired by any subsequent legislation of the State imposing taxes upon the property of the corporation. That decision remains in full force and effect, and must be held to be\u00bb decisive of the question now raised as to the validity of the amendment of 1855. By assigning new reasons for holding the act invalid which existed at the time that decision was rendered, the parties cannot re-litigate the question settled by that litigation. In Umlauf v. Umlauf, 117 Ill. 580, on page 584 the court said: \u201cNo principle is better settled than that where a question proper for judicial determination is directly put in issue and finally determined in a legal proceeding by a court having competent authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the same, such decision and determination of the question will be deemed final and conclusive upon the parties and their privies in all future litigation between them in which the same question arises, so long as the judgment remains unreversed or is not otherwise set aside.\u201d And in Bailey v. Bailey, 115 Ill. 551, at page 557: \u201cAs said in Rogers v. Higgins, 57 Ill. 244, the controversy cannot be re-opened to hear additional reasons which before existed and were within the knowledge of the party, in support of the same cause of action. The principle of res judicata embraces not only what actually was determined in the former case, but also extends to any other matter properly involved and which might have been raised and determined in it.\u201d. And in Harmon v. Auditor of Public Accounts, 123 Ill. 122, at page 133: \u201cIn Beloit v. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619, it is said: \u2018The principle of res judicata reaches further. It extends not only to the questions of fact and of law which were decided in the former suit, but also to the grounds of recovery or defense which might have been but were not presented.\u2019\u201d\nIt is contended the holding in Northwestern University v. People, supra, has been modified by the court rendering that opinion in the case of Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 662. We do not so understand those eases. In the opinion filed in the Seminary case the two cases are distinguished, and a different conclusion was reached in that case from the one in the University case, on the ground that the clauses found in the charters of the university and seminary exempting the property of said institutions from taxation were radically different, and not identical in meaning, as was contended in argument when the Seminary case was being considered. In the Seminary case, on page 675 it was said: \u201cThe case of University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, is no authority for the contention contended for by the plaintiff in error. In that case the charter provided \u2018that all property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned by said corporations, shall be forever free from taxation for any and all purposes. \u2019 The difference between the two provisions is intrinsic and material. What is lacking in the case at bar is present .in the case cited, namely, a provision exempting all the property \u2018owned by said corporation. \u2019 In the case before us it is the property \u2018belonging or appertaining to said seminary,\u2019 and the word \u2018belonging\u2019 is construed by the Supreme Court as not synonymous with \u2018owned by.\u2019 Nor is the word \u2018seminary\u2019 regarded in this connection as the equivalent of the word \u2018corporation.\u2019\u201d\nThe only question remaining is, does the amendment of 1855 exempt from taxation the property of the corporation acquired prior to its passage? In People v. Chicago Theological Seminary, 174 Ill. 177, that question was incidentally involved, and it was held that all property belonging to the corporation was in unmistakable terms exempt from taxation., The language contained in the amendment is very comprehensive, it being, \u201call property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned b.y said corporation,\u201d and is so plain as not to be open to construction, and clearly exempts all the property of the corporation from taxation acquired prior to the passage of the amendment.\nThe decision of the board of review setting aside and vacating\" the assessment as to the fee was clearly right, and it will be approved.\nDecision approved.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hand" } ], "attorneys": [ "H. J. Hamlin, Attorney General, for the Auditor; John C. Richberg, for the board of assessors; Frank L. Shepard, for the board of review.", "H. H. C. Miller, and John P. Wilson, for Northwestern University." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re Assessment of the Northwestern University.\nOpinion filed December 16, 1903.\n1. Res judicata\u2014when question cannot be re-litigated. Where the constitutionality of a statute has been upheld by a court of last resort the question cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent suit between the same parties by assigning new reasons for holding the act invalid which existed when the decision was rendered.\n2. Taxes\u2014tax exemption provision of charter of Northwestern University is constitutional. Section 4 of the act of 1855, which exempted from taxation all property belonging to or owned by the Northwestern University, is constitutional. (Northwestern University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, followed.)\n3. Same\u2014property acquired by Northwestern University prior to 1855 is exempt from taxation. Under section 4 -of the act of 1855, amending the charter of the Northwestern University, \u201call property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned by\u201d said university, acquired prior to said amendment, is exemjTj\u2019\u00edrom taxation.\nAuditor\u2019s certificate of appeal from decision of board of review of Cook county.\nThe board of assessors of Cook county assessed for taxation for the year 1903 certain improved real estate located in the business center of the city of Chicago, owned by the Northwestern University, which is under lease to the Illinois Trust Safety Deposit Company and in use by it for banking and safety deposit purposes. The university filed\u00bb objections to the assessment with the board of review of said county, upon the ground that the property was exempt from taxation by virtue of section 4 of an act of the legislature approved February 14, 1855, entitled \u201cAn act to amend an act entitled \u2018An act to incorporate the Northwestern University,\u2019 approved January 28,1851,\u201d which section reads as follows: \u201cThat all property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned by said corporation, shall be forever free from taxation for any and all purposes.\u201d. The board of review sustained the objections, and ordered that the assessment upon the fee be vacated and set aside and assessed the leasehold interest to the trust company at the sum of $50,000. The facts were certified by the board of review to the Auditor of Public Accounts and by the Auditor to this court, in accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the Revenue act of 1898.\nIt is claimed by the board of assessors the property is subject to assessment and taxation on the following grounds: First, the amendment of 1855 to the charter of the university is unconstitutional and void; and second, the real estate in question having been acquired by the university prior to the passage of the amendment of 1855,-it is not exempt from taxation.\nH. J. Hamlin, Attorney General, for the Auditor; John C. Richberg, for the board of assessors; Frank L. Shepard, for the board of review.\nH. H. C. Miller, and John P. Wilson, for Northwestern University." }, "file_name": "0064-01", "first_page_order": 64, "last_page_order": 68 }