{
  "id": 5140347,
  "name": "The People ex rel. G. Stanley Olmsted, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Olmsted v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1925-04-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 16604",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "316 Ill. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3333271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/224/0155-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2611,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1556633224562513
    },
    "sha256": "5360a2c9fdc7ef5372e6ffac63f5f0bf5478a8697127fe8bc545daf2fa07e6ab",
    "simhash": "1:14cb4af1a2865f52",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:36.505765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. G. Stanley Olmsted, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Farmer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAppellant railroad company objected to judgment being rendered by the county court of Vermilion county against its property for certain taxes. The objections were overruled, judgment rendered for the tax, and the railroad company has appealed to this court.\nThe taxes objected to are the road and bridge taxes of the towns of Catlin, Jamaica, Newell, Pilot and Oakwood and the town tax for the town of Danville.\nThe objections to the road and bridge taxes in all the towns mentioned, except Oakwood, were the same as the objections to such taxes in the towns of Catlin and Newell passed on by this court in People v. Wabash Railway Co. (ante, p. 403,) in which the court held the county court erred in permitting the levies to be amended as to Catlin and Newell townships and in rendering judgment for the taxes. Following that case, the levies in those townships, and in Pilot and Jamaica townships, for road and bridge purposes must be held void and the judgment of the county court erroneous.\nWe held in the same case, on the same objections, that the levy for the tax for the town of Danville was valid, and the court rightly rendered judgment for that tax.\nThe objection to the road and bridge tax of the town of Oakwood was, that the levy certified by the commissioner was 42 y2 cents on the $100 and the county clerk extended the tax at the rate of 43 cents. This action of the clerk was authorized by section 128 of the Revenue act. St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Co. v. People, 224 Ill. 155.\nThe judgment of the county court is affirmed as to the road and bridge tax for the town of Oakwood and for the town tax for the town of Danville. The judgment is reversed as to the road and bridge taxes for the towns of Newell, Pilot, Jamaica and Catlin.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Farmer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. M. STEELY, and H. M. Steely, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Elmer O. Furrow, State\u2019s Attorney, (John H. Lew-man, and I. R. Carter, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 16604.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.)\nThe People ex rel. G. Stanley Olmsted, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed April 24, 1925.\n1. Taxes \u2014 fractions may be disregarded in extending rate. Under section 128 of the Revenue act a tax certified to the clerk at a rate of 42J4 may be extended on a rate of 43.\n2. Other questions in this case are controlled by the decision in People v. Wabash Railway Co. (ante, p. 403.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. Walter J. Bookwalter, Judge, presiding.\nH. M. STEELY, and H. M. Steely, Jr., for appellant.\nElmer O. Furrow, State\u2019s Attorney, (John H. Lew-man, and I. R. Carter, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 459
}