{
  "id": 4712138,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Allen E. Parmenter, County Collector, Appellant, vs. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Parmenter v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "477",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ill. 476"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3441765
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/253/0234-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 3088,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.305441788676267e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6231189540394054
    },
    "sha256": "5309d221cf920adb13d8134d70c161bd70d5ab1029e08beb15d51b5a2fefc0bf",
    "simhash": "1:32008c616135386a",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:00.731799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Allen E. Parmenter, County Collector, Appellant, vs. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe board of supervisors of Whiteside county levied a tax of $64,000, of which $6000 was stated to be for \u201ccounty farm\u201d arid $2071.22 for \u201ccontingent.\u201d The directors of school district No. 13 levied a tax of $10,100 for \u201ceducational purposes\u201d and $7500 for building purposes. The appellee\u2019s objections to judgment against its property for taxes extended, on these levies were sustained.' The objection to the county tax was that the purposes specified were too indefinite and the levy for contingent expenses excessive, and we have so held. (People v. Bowman, 253 Ill. 234; People v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. id. 100.) The objection to the school tax was that no election had been' held for the building of a new school house, and this was stipulated to be true. Section 189 of the School law now provides that sums expended for the improvement, repair or benefit of school buildings shall be paid from the tax levied for building purposes. We cannot - take judicial notice that the sum levied by the school directors was not needed for the ordinary repairs and improvement of school buildings or grounds, for which section 189 expressly says no petition shall be necessary, but was for the purpose of accumulating a fund for building a new school house, and no evidence was introduced on this question. The objection to the school tax should have been overruled.\nThe judgment as to the county tax will be affirmed but as to the school tax it will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded to the county court, with directions to overrule the objections and enter judgment for the amount of the school tax.\nAffirmed in part and remanded, with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. J. Ludens, and Jacob Cantlin, for appellant.",
      "J. A. Connell, and W. D. Barge, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. Allen E. Parmenter, County Collector, Appellant, vs. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, Appellee.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1912.\n1. Taxes\u2014zohen items of county tax levy are invalid. An item of $2071.22 for \u201ccontingent\u201d expenses in a county where the entire county levy is $64,000 is excessive; and an item of $6000 for \u201ccounty farm\u201d is too indefinite.\n2. Same\u2014what is properly included in school tax for building purposes. Under section 189 of the School law, money expended for the improvement, repair or benefit of school houses is to be paid from the tax levied for building purposes, and no petition therefor is necessary.\n\u25a0 3'. Same\u2014-when objection to tax for building purposes should not be sustained. An objection to a tax for building purposes should not be sustained upon the ground that there was no election held for building a new school house where no evidence was introduced upon the question, as the court cannot take judicial notice that the sum so levied was not needed for the ordinary repairs and improvement of school buildings and grounds but was to accumulate a fund for building a new school house.\nAppeal from the County Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. William A. Blodgett, Judge, presiding.\nJ. J. Ludens, and Jacob Cantlin, for appellant.\nJ. A. Connell, and W. D. Barge, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}