{
  "id": 5635022,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Arthur A. Correll, County Treasurer, Appellee, vs. The Illinois and Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Correll v. Illinois & Indiana Railroad ",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "379",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "231 Ill. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "194 Ill. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5582510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/194/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 Ill. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3312908
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/213/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 4406,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4723151813097984
    },
    "sha256": "020fb735d4cee465d0d835bba08020c0ca92d40e0536b6dc304c59b23314f7d3",
    "simhash": "1:f2d7acc0627c4fa1",
    "word_count": 749
  },
  "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. Arthur A. Correll, County Treasurer, Appellee, vs. The Illinois and Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe county tax objected to was levied for the.\u201cgeneral fund.\u201d Section 121 of chapter 120, Hurd\u2019s Revised Statutes, provides that when, as in this instance, the county board levies a tax for several purposes the amount for each purpose shall be stated separately. \u201cThis requirement gives the tax-payer an opportunity to know for what purpose taxes are being levied and collected, and gives him an opportunity, if necessary, to prevent unjust levy and assessment. Taxes raised for county purposes include many different things, and these various amounts and purposes can be ascertained by the county board the same as they are ascertained by other taxing bodies.\u201d (Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. People, 213 Ill. 458; People v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railway Co. 224 id. 523; Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railway Co. v. People, 213 id. 197.) To specify a tax as being for the \u201cgeneral fund\u201d does not enable the tax-payer to ascertain for what purpose the tax is being levied and collected, and gives the taxing body an opportunity to impose a tax which may later be expended for an illegal purpose.\nThe town tax of the town of Robinson objected to was levied \u201cfor payment of contingent expenses incurred for the use and benefit of the town.\u201d As has been stated in reference to the county tax, this was not such a designation of the purpose for which the tax was levied as would enable the tax-payer to determine whether that purpose was legal or illegal, and for this reason the levy of the town tax was, as to that item, invalid. People v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. 194 Ill. 51; Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railway Co. v. People, supra.\nThe judgment of the county court will be reversed and the cause will be remanded to that court, with directions to enter an order sustaining the objections and refusing judgment for the sale of the property of appellant.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John G. Drennan, and Parker & Crowley, for appellant.",
      "W. H. Stead, Attorney General, and William A. Thompson, State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. Arthur A. Correll, County Treasurer, Appellee, vs. The Illinois and Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1907.\n1. Taxes\u2014specifying county tax, in the levy, as being for \u201cgeneral fund\u201d is not sufficient. The purpose of section 121 of the Revenue act, providing that a county tax levy for several purposes shall specify the amount for each purpose separately, is to furnish definite information to the tax-payer as to what taxes are being levied and collected, and such section is not complied with by a levy for the \u201cgeneral fund.\u201d\n2. Same\u2014when a levy of town tax is invalid for indefiniteness. A levy of town taxes \u201cfor the payment of contingent expenses incurred for the use and benefit of the town\u201d is not such a designation of the purpose of the tax as will enable the tax-payer to determine whether the purpose is legal or illegal, and is, as to such item, invalid.\nAppeal from the County Court of Crawford county the Hon. J. C. Maxwell, Judge, presiding.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Crawford county in favor of appellee, against the lands of the Illinois and Indiana Railroad Company in Crawford county, for certain taxes alleged to be delinquent for the year 1906.\nObjections were filed by the appellant to the application for judgment. The first objection was to a portion of the county tax, amounting to $101.46, which was extended against the property of appellant by reason of an item contained in the levy made by the board of supervisors of $5000 for the \u201cgeneral fund.\u201d The second objection was to $29.06 of the town tax of Robinson. The certificate of the town clerk of that township shows that a levy of $650 was made \u201cfor. payment of contingent expenses incurred for the use and benefit of the town.\u201d The town tax objected to' was that extended against appellant\u2019s property by virtue of this item. Upon a hearing these objections were overruled and judgment was rendered against the lands of appellant for the two amounts, with interest, penalties and costs.\nIt is contended by appellant that the court erred in holding that the purposes for which these taxes were levied were sufficiently designated by the taxing bodies and in rendering judgment against the property.\nJohn G. Drennan, and Parker & Crowley, for appellant.\nW. H. Stead, Attorney General, and William A. Thompson, State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}