{
  "id": 4741598,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Paul W. Abt, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The St. Louis Bridge Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Abt v. St. Louis Bridge Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 Ill. 103"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.706,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.393710598571577
    },
    "sha256": "e16870e41f428e9bd0d416110a61ed183fd0e53c538d35a2f658665a21d8f44b",
    "simhash": "1:f0c402450ad8ef0c",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:32.535012+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Paul W. Abt, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The St. Louis Bridge Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe only question presented by this appeal is -whether an additional county tax of five cents on each $100 levied pursuant to a vote of the people on the proposition to levy such tax for the purpose of building an addition to the county hospital and erecting a small building for consumptive patients at the county farm should have been scaled under the provisions \u00f3f section 2 of \u201cAn act concerning the levy and extension of taxes,\u201d as amended June 29, 1909. (Laws of 1909, p. 323.) That section requires the county clerk to reduce proportionately the tax levies, exclusive of certain taxes which are expressly excepted, in any taxing district or municipality in which such tax levies, exclusive of those so expressly excepted, exceed three per cent of the assessed valuation, provided that in counties having a population less than three hundred thousand the rate of levy for county purposes shall not be reduced below forty-five cents on the $100 valuation.\nIt was stipulated that under the law there should be a reduction of 56.14 per cent of all taxes subject to reduction; that the proposition submitted to the voters to levy the additional tax mentioned was carried; that the county clerk scaled the county tax rate, not including the additional five cents, to the minimum of forty-five cents but did not scale the additional tax, and extended a county tax rate of fifty cents on each $100, consisting of the said minimum rate of 'forty-five cents and the additional tax of five cents. The stipulation states that the question submitted is whether ,6r not the five cent rate voted for should have been scaled. The language of the statute answers the question. The taxes excepted from reduction are State, village, levee, school building, high school and road and bridge taxes, certain bonded indebtedness taxes, and taxes levied pursuant to the mandate or judgment of any court of record on any bonded indebtedness. County taxes levied pursuant to a popular vote are not excepted.\nThe county court erred in rendering judgment against the appellant, and its judgment is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. C. Kramer, R. J. Kramer, B. A. Campbell, and W. H. Hebenstreit, (T. M. Pierce,' and J. L. Howell, of counsel,) for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. Paul W. Abt, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The St. Louis Bridge Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1913.\nTaxes \u2014 county tax levied pursuant to popular vote is not exempt from the scaling process. An additional county tax levied in pursuance of a vote of the people for the purpose of erecting an addition to the county hospital and a small building for consumptive patients at the county farm is not exempt from the scaling process provided for in the amended Revenue law of 1909.\nAppeal from the County Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Prank Perrin, Judge,- presiding.\nE. C. Kramer, R. J. Kramer, B. A. Campbell, and W. H. Hebenstreit, (T. M. Pierce,' and J. L. Howell, of counsel,) for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 103,
  "last_page_order": 104
}