{ "id": 5109354, "name": "The People ex rel. Melvin Thaxton, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Thaxton v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1923-12-19", "docket_number": "No. 15691", "first_page": "257", "last_page": "259", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "310 Ill. 257" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "262 Ill. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4750236 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/262/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 Ill. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5782771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/306/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ill. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3386009 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/237/0312-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 218, "char_count": 3676, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.565971613381455e-07, "percentile": 0.6777750363052054 }, "sha256": "5c39573e273a2e9dba581444005a86b5214dac9446ff227c1e60c018de7920a9", "simhash": "1:c94fd76880a68f62", "word_count": 630 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:52:40.361673+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People ex rel. Melvin Thaxton, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company appealed from the judgment of the county court of Williamson county overruling its objections to the application of the county collector for judgment against its railroad for taxes.\nAn objection was made to an item of the county tax, \u201cCourt fund, $4000,\u201d and the objection was properly overruled. A levy for \u201ccourt expenses, bailiffs and jurors\u201d was held in People v. Cairo, Vincennes and Chicago Railway Co. 237 Ill. 312, to be a sufficient compliance with the rule which requires the county board to state separately the several purposes for which county taxes are levied, and the same rule applies to a levy for \u201ccourt fund.\u201d\nObjection was made to the levy of a rate in excess of fifty cents on the $100 for road and bridge purposes in the towns of Herrin, Lake Creek, East Marion and West Marion, because the written consent of a majority of the board of town auditors at a meeting on the first Tuesday of September was not obtained. Such excess levy has been held invalid in People v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Co. 306 Ill. 402, and People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co. 307 id. 162.\nThe appellee relies upon the curative act of May 31, 1923, \u201cto validate certain township taxes.\u201d (Laws of 1923, p. 566.) We have held that this act is unconstitutional in People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. (ante, p. 212.) The objection to the road and bridge taxes should therefore have been sustained.\nThe appellee has argued that the court erred in sustaining the objection to the item of the county tax levy, \u201cPrison fund, $4000,\u201d but the appeal does not bring up that item for consideration and cross-errors cannot be assigned on it. People v. Vogt, 262 Ill. 170; People v. New York Central Railroad Co. 296 id. 187.\nThe judgment will be affirmed as to the county tax and reversed as to the road and bridge tax and remanded, with directions to sustain the objections to the road and bridge tax.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ed M. Sfiller, (H. T. Dick, of counsel,) for appellant.", "D. L. Duty, State\u2019s Attorney, Ray D. Henson, and George T. Carter, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 15691.\nReversed and remanded.)\nThe People ex rel. Melvin Thaxton, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed, December 19, 1923.\n1. Taxes \u2014 item of county tax for \"court fund\u201d is sufficiently specific. The rule which requires the county board to state separately the several purposes for which county taxes are levied is sufficiently complied with in a levy of a certain amount for \u201ccourt fund.\u201d\n2. Same \u2014 excess road and bridge tax without written consent of town auditors is invalid. A levy of a township road and bridge tax in excess of fifty cents on the $100 is invalid where the highway commissioner has not obtained the written consent of a majority of the board of town auditors at a meeting held on the first Tuesday of September.\n3. Same \u2014 curative act of May 31, 1923, is invalid. The curative act of May 31, 1923, (Laws \u00f3f 1923, p. 566,) purporting to validate certain township taxes, is unconstitutional. (People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. ante, p. 212, followed.)\n4. Same \u2014 when cross-errors cannot be assigned to ruling on tax item. On appeal from a judgment overruling certain objections to the application of the county collector for delinquent taxes, cross-errors cannot be assigned as to a ruling sustaining an objection to an item of tax which is not brought up by the appeal.\nAppeal from the County Court of Williamson county; the Hon. A. D. Morgan, Judge, presiding.\nEd M. Sfiller, (H. T. Dick, of counsel,) for appellant.\nD. L. Duty, State\u2019s Attorney, Ray D. Henson, and George T. Carter, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0257-01", "first_page_order": 257, "last_page_order": 259 }