{
  "id": 5634142,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Dan Lee, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Cincinnati, Lafayette and Chicago Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Lee v. Cincinnati, Lafayette & Chicago Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "363",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "231 Ill. 363"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3333271
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/224/0155-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3646,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.16360838025691846
    },
    "sha256": "14f5b679b9f0eece80127cb8b36143767ddf66c790776165dfe7c56e51d8b040",
    "simhash": "1:26e9c9c1d8e02f42",
    "word_count": 612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:19.800214+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Dan Lee, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Cincinnati, Lafayette and Chicago Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Farmer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal by the Cincinnati, Lafayette and Chicago Railway Company from a judgment of the county court of Kankakee county overruling its objections to certain taxes levied and extended against it and rendering judgment for said taxes. One of said objections was to road and bridge taxes for the town of St. Anne. A levy of sixty cents on the $100 was made by the commissioners of said township \u201cfor road and bridge purposes and for the payment of outstanding orders drawn on our treasurer for the year 1906.\u201d Said commissioners further certified to the board of town auditors and assessor that they also required twenty cents on each $100 valuation \u201cfor the purpose of repairing bridges.\u201d It was to this additional tax of twenty cents on the $100 that appellant objected.\nSection 14 of chapter 121, Hurd\u2019s Statutes of 1905, authorizes an additional levy to the sixty cents only \u201cin view of some contingency.\u201d That a contingency exists, and what it is, must be stated in the certificate of the commissioners in order to make the tax levy valid. (St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Co. v. People, 224 Ill. 155; Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Co. v. People, 226 id. 557.) A tax for repairing bridges is included in the tax for road and bridge purposes,, unless such repairs are made necessary by som\u00e9 contingency. (People v. Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Co. ante, p. 125; Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Co. v. People, supra.) If the additional levy is. needed for any such contingency the certificate must so state. Nothing is contained in the certificate here from which it appears the additional levy was not wanted for the ordinary road and bridge purposes for which the sixty cents on the $100, the maximum amount authorized by law, was levied, and the court should have sustained appellant\u2019s objection to said tax.\nIn the levy of taxes for county purposes by the board of supervisors was an item of $11,000 \u201cfor building and incidental expenses.\u201d Appellant objected to judgment against it for this tax on the ground that it was not in compliance with section 121 of the Revenue act, which requires that where taxes are levied for several purposes the amount for each purpose shall be stated separately. A county tax levy for \u201cbuilding and incidental expenses\u201d w\u00e1s held invalid in People v. Kankakee and Southwestern Railroad Co. (ante, p. 109.) The court erred in not sustaining the appellant\u2019s objection to judgment being rendered against it for the county taxes.\nThe judgment of the county court is reversed -and the cause remanded, with directions to that court to sustain appellant s objections.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Farmer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. R. Hunter, (L. J. Hackney, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "J. Bert. Miller, State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. Dan Lee, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Cincinnati, Lafayette and Chicago Railway Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1907.\n1. Taxes\u2014when additional tax cannot be levied for repairing bridges. The repair of bridges is included in the ordinary road and bridge purposes, and an additional tax cannot be levied, under section 14 of the Road and Bridge act, for \u201crepairing bridges\u201d unless the certificate shows such repairs have been necessitated by some contingency such as is contemplated by the statute.\n2. Same\u2014levy of county tax for \u201cbuilding and incidental expenses\u201d is invalid. A levy of a county tax for \u201cbuilding and incidental expenses\u201d is not in compliance with statute and is invalid.\nAppeal from the County Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. A. W. Deselm, Judge, presiding.\nW. R. Hunter, (L. J. Hackney, of counsel,) for appellant.\nJ. Bert. Miller, State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0363-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 364
}