{
  "id": 5121581,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Lial C. Pollock, County Collector, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Eastern Illinois and St. Louis Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Pollock v. Eastern Illinois & St. Louis Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1924-04-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 15877",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "135",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 Ill. 134"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "310 Ill. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5109354
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/310/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ill. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5107342
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/310/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ill. 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5782771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/306/0402-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2854,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15549439368858956
    },
    "sha256": "dc6166ff3e8987b48bebbcc4e03665623ba86ef649d7a7292c0941d7ce233459",
    "simhash": "1:ff6fcc6882475ee2",
    "word_count": 484
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:16.181537+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Lial C. Pollock, County Collector, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Eastern Illinois and St. Louis Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nTwo objections were filed in the county court of Iroquois county as to certain taxes of defendant in error and both objections were sustained. No complaint is made as to the action of the county court in sustaining one of these objections, but it is insisted by counsel for plaintiff in error that the county court erred in sustaining objections to the additional rate of sixteen cents on the $100 above the fifty-cent rate extended against defendant in error\u2019s property. The board of town auditors granted the highway commissioner\u2019s request for such additional tax on August 21, 1922, which consent was filed, with the regular road and bridge levy, in the county clerk\u2019s office on September 7, 1922. This was the only consent upon which the clerk extended the additional tax. The written consent required by section 56 of the Road and Bridge act must be obtained on the first Tuesday of September before making the levy for the additional amount. People v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Co. 306 Ill. 402; People v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co. 307 id. 162; People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 310 id. 212; People v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Co. 310 id. 257.\nThe act which purports to validate taxes such as these, on which counsel for plaintiff in error seem to rely as curing the defect, has been held void by this court. People v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co. 310 Ill. 428; People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. supra; People v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Co. 310 Ill. 257.\nThe judgment of the county court must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. E. Lewis, (Elmer A. Taylor, State\u2019s Attorney, and D. A. Smith, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.",
      "Free P. Morris, and Roscoe C. South, (Homer T. Dick, of counsel,) for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 15877.\nJudgment affirmed.)\nThe People ex rel. Lial C. Pollock, County Collector, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Eastern Illinois and St. Louis Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nOpinion filed April 14, 1924.\n1. Taxes \u2014 consent to additional town road and bridge tax must be obtained on first Tuesday in September. Under section 56 of the Road and Bridge act, consent to an additional tax for township road and bridge purposes must be obtained on the first Tuesday of September before making the levy for such tax. (People v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railzvay Co. 306 111. 402, followed.)\n2. Same \u2014 act validating unauthorized town road and bridge tax is invalid. The act of 1923 purporting to validate an additional town road and bridge tax for which consent is not properly obtained is invalid. (People v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co. 310 111. 428, followed.)\nWrit op Error to the County Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. John H. Gillan, Judge, presiding.\nW. E. Lewis, (Elmer A. Taylor, State\u2019s Attorney, and D. A. Smith, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.\nFree P. Morris, and Roscoe C. South, (Homer T. Dick, of counsel,) for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 135
}