{
  "id": 425905,
  "name": "Alfred Daniels v. Peter Burso",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daniels v. Burso",
  "decision_date": "1866-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5939,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6013790765407558
    },
    "sha256": "2822ff05afc1c3496cb624cc084584e47ec031cdc235ad6697da6491b72c3d03",
    "simhash": "1:86d1d0f5f51e4ad9",
    "word_count": 1052
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:50.333701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alfred Daniels v. Peter Burso."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of ejectment in the Kankakee Circuit Court, brought by Alfred Daniels against Peter Burso, to recover the possession of lot eight in block nine, in Kankakee city. Two verdicts were rendered for the defendant, on the last of which, judgment was entered against the plaintiff for the costs. The plaintiff has taken this writ of error to this court, and has assigned various errors, the most important of which will be noticed.\nThe plaintiff claimed the premises by virtue of a sheriff\u2019s deed, on a sale of the lot for the taxes of 1858. The deed is in the usual form and was recorded October 30, 1861.\nTo rebut this proof the defendant offered in evidence, against the objection of the plaintiff, the following receipt:\n\u201cState of Illinois, Kankakee county. Collector\u2019s office, Kankakee, Jan. 31, 1859. Received of Claude Petit teetyeeven dollars and 14 cents in full for the following State, county, town, and special tax on the following described real estate, and on personal property for the year 1858, viz.:\n\u201c G-. LOMG-FELLOW,\n\u201c Collector.\u201d\nThe plaintiff in error urges several objections to this instrument of evidence. He contends that as the statute makes the sheriff\u2019s deed prima facie evidence, that the taxes were not paid at any time before the sale, and that the lands conveyed had not been redeemed from the sale at the date of the deed, strong proof is required to rebut it. It is admitted that this presumption must be overcome by proof, but the quantum is nowhere suggested. The receipt was competent evidence, it purporting to be the act of the collector of taxes, and it was a fair question for the jury, when it was before them, to determine what \u201c teety-seven dollars \u201d meant, and this they could readily do, by observing the footing up of the column headed \u201c total tax.\u201d\nAnother objection is, that as it was in proof there were in Kankakee city a great many lots numbered eight, and as the receipt does not show in what block lot eight, on which the taxes were, paid, was situated, it should not have been admitted to prove it was in block nine.\nThis also, was a question fairly for the jury to determine, and though the evidence was not of the most conclusive character, still it was sufficient to justify the jury in finding as they did. But one block, and that block nine, is specified in the receipt. The first is lot five in block nine, with the valuation, and then follows lot eight with its valuation, leaving it to be inferred, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, that lot eight was in the same block as lot five. Another objection is, that this receipt could not be connected with the premises in controversy, because the statute provides that no person shall be permitted to question the title acquired by a collector\u2019s deed, without first showing that he had title to the land at the time of the sale (Scates\u2019 Comp. 1,000), and no such proof was shown.\nOn the trial this objection was not made and cannot now be raised in this court. The case proceeded as if the title of the defendant, independent of the tax title, was clear and indisputable, and it would seem to be too late now to put forth this objection, which if made at the proper time, an opportunity would have been afforded the defendant to obviate it.\nAs to the instructions asked by the plaintiff and refused by the court, it is sufficient to say that the fifteenth instruction given for the plaintiff, covers the whole ground of controversy, and puts the merits of the case fairly before the jury. That instruction is as follows:\n\u201c The court instructs the jury that to defeat the plaintiff\u2019s claim, the defendant must swear that the taxes were paid upon the identical property, lot and block, mentioned in the deed, for the year the said lands were sold, under which the plaintiff claims title, and that proof must be made by the defendant.\u201d\nThis was a fair statement of the law of the case, and although the proof was not of the strongest character, we deem it sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Stephen R. Moore, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. M. B. Loomis, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alfred Daniels v. Peter Burso.\n1. Tax title\u2014receipt for taxes paid before the sale\u2014its sufficiency. In an action of ejectment, where the plaintiff relied upon a tax deed, the defendant sought to prove that the taxes for the alleged non-payment of which the land had been sold, had been paid before the sale, and offered a receipt for such taxes from the collector, for \u201c teety seven dollars,\u201d the receipt also containing a column, headed \u201c total tax,\u201d which footed up, in figures, $27. This was sufficient, as the jury could readily determine what \u201cteety seven dollars\u201d meant by observing the footing up of the column headed \u201ctotal tax.\u201d\n2. The receipt described the premises upon which the taxes were paid, by No. 5 placed in a column headed \u201c lot,\u201d and 9 in the next column headed \u201c block,\u201d then followed the figure 8 in the column headed \u201clot,\u201d but with no number opposite thereto in the column headed \u201cblock.\u201d Held, that this description was sufficient to justify the inference, nothing appearing to the contrary, that lot eight was in the same block as lot five.\n8. Practice \u2014 when to object that a pa/rty questioning a tax deed has shown no title. Where the plaintiff in ejectment relies upon a tax deed, and the defendant relies upon proof that the taxes for the alleged non-payment of which the land had been sold, were paid before the sale, an objection to such proof by the defendant on the ground that he has shown no title to the land, cannot be made for the first time on error; it should be made on the trial below, so as to enable the party to obviate it by proper evidence.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case.\nMr. Stephen R. Moore, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. M. B. Loomis, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 310
}