{
  "id": 2595938,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Joseph B. McDonough, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Dorothy Sherwin, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. McDonough v. Sherwin",
  "decision_date": "1935-10-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 22778",
  "first_page": "403",
  "last_page": "405",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "361 Ill. 403"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2454528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/29/0488-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.705,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4804976468812204e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8817290120003135
    },
    "sha256": "7df4ddece1bb60294b79a14fe82f1cabea9b17eb1e9db935b9adaf62bfb6d264",
    "simhash": "1:06f1eee2b42885df",
    "word_count": 575
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:11.358327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Joseph B. McDonough, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Dorothy Sherwin, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wilson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA judgment was entered by the county court of Cook county against the property of the appellant, Dorothy Sherwin, (hereafter referred to as the objector,) returned delinquent for unpaid taxes for the years 1929 and 1930. She seeks a review of that judgment.\nAn opinion in this case was submitted at the February term, 1935, of this court. A petition for rehearing was filed on behalf of the objector and allowed. The cause has been re-submitted upon the petition for rehearing, an answer thereto and a reply to the answer.\nIn our original opinion we observed that the record submitted to the court was badly confused. Upon further investigation, after a consideration of the petition for rehearing, the answer thereto and the reply to the answer, we are convinced that a proper decision based upon the present record cannot be rendered. The attorneys for the collector and objector each prepared an appendix, respectively, to their answer to the petition for rehearing and the reply to the answer. The appendix in the answer of the collector purports to show that certain essential facts disclosed by the records in the offices of the county collector and county clerk were omitted. The appendix in the objector\u2019s reply to the answer contains certain facts purporting to explain those shown by the appendix to the answer. Neither of these appendices can be considered as a part of the record here, but from the facts therein disclosed and those appearing from the records of the county clerk and county collector the inaccuracy and insufficiency of the record presented to this court are made apparent.\nA partial or installment payment of taxes for each of the years 1927 and 1928 is made to appear by the record here as a full payment of the tax for each of those years. It is also made to appear that the tax for each of those years was extended upon valuations which, at the rate for that year, would produce the amount, or approximately the amount, of the partial payment, instead of the entire tax paid for each of these years. This is manifestly misleading.\nThe statement is made in the brief of the objector that the valuations of the property used for the extension of the taxes for the years 1929 and 1930 are considerably greater than the valuations for 1927 and 1928. There was no such increase. There was an increase in the tax rate for the years 1929 and 1930, which resulted in a somewhat higher tax upon the objector\u2019s property, but the valuation upon which the assessment was made in 1928, 1929 and 1930 was $23,228.\nOther discrepancies appear to which reference need not be made.\nFor the failure of a party to present a proper record or abstract this court will of its own motion dismiss an appeal or writ of error. (VanMeter\u2019s Heirs v. Lovis\u2019 Heirs, 29 Ill. 488; Washburn v. Scott, 231 id. 393.) Because of the insufficiency of the record here it is necessary to dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wilson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. A. Sherwin, and DenEEn, Healy & LEE,-(Roy MassEna, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Courtney, State\u2019s Attorney, (Hayden N. Bell, Jacob Shamberg, Louis H. Geiman, William P. Kearney, and Brendan Q. O\u2019Brien, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 22778.\nThe People ex rel. Joseph B. McDonough, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Dorothy Sherwin, Appellant.\nOpinion filed October 14, 1935.\nL. A. Sherwin, and DenEEn, Healy & LEE,-(Roy MassEna, of counsel,) for appellant.\nThomas J. Courtney, State\u2019s Attorney, (Hayden N. Bell, Jacob Shamberg, Louis H. Geiman, William P. Kearney, and Brendan Q. O\u2019Brien, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0403-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 405
}