{
  "id": 5270768,
  "name": "William M. Springer v. John E. Rosette et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Springer v. Rosette",
  "decision_date": "1868-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 Ill. 223"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0638969290861082e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5578211316567104
    },
    "sha256": "c08ace07d603e75a65952cd32f7c2713d80a0027ede9e5b0a0560ba1b6e003da",
    "simhash": "1:7b4be405af8c3abe",
    "word_count": 623
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:57.354715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William M. Springer v. John E. Rosette et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe question presented by the argument in this case, is one of great interest, and if this court was in a position to examine and decide it, we would not have the least hesitation in doing so, upon its merits. But there is an allegation in complainant\u2019s bill, who is the plaintiff* in error, which, in our judgment, precludes this court from such action.\nIt is alleged in the bill, that the land of complainant was sold by the collector, in default of payment of his income tax, purchased in by the collector for the United States, and a deed therefor executed to the United States, and delivered to the attorney of the United States, Mr. Rosette, one of the defendants in error, in pursuance of section 30, of the act of Congress of June 30,1864, U. S. statutes at large, vol. 15, pp. 234-235.\nBy that section, the title to the land sold has, by the deed executed and delivered to the attorney of the United States, passed to the United States, so far as the sale and deed could do so, and this court has no jurisdiction over the United States. Besides, the United States are not made a party to this proceeding, and no decree we might make against Mr. Rosette could affect, in any way, the title of the United States acquired by the collector\u2019s deed.\nIf the views entertained by the plaintiff in error, that the act of Congress levying an income tax be unconstitutional, then a sale to satisfy such tax would, undoubtedly, be void; and, if proceedings in ejectment should be instituted to dispossess plaintiff in error, then his remedy at law would be complete. Courts of chancery will not take jurisdiction to try the validity of tax titles, on the allegation that they are a cloud. No case of this kind can be found in the books. This court can make no decree invalidating the collector\u2019s deed, as that deed was made to the United States, and, as we have before said, they are not parties to this proceeding. If they undertake to use this deed against the plaintiff in error, by an attempt to dispossess him, then will full opportunity be afforded him to make every objection to it, to which it is obnoxious. A court of chancery has no authority to interfere. The decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill is affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. McClernand, Broadwell & Springer, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. Stuart, Edwards & Brown, and Mr. John E. Rosette, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William M. Springer v. John E. Rosette et al.\n1. Jurisdiction\u2014chanceiy will not take\u2014to try validity of tax titles\u2014on ground of being a eloud. Courts of chancery will not take jurisdiction to try the validity of tax titles, on the ground that they are a cloud.\n2. Same. Where the land of a person, sold by the U. S. Collector of internal revenue to satisfy his income tax, purchased in by such collector, and deeded to the United States, and the deed therefor delivered, this court cannot take jurisdiction over the matter in a suit to which the United States are not made parties.\n3. Taxes\u2014where the sale for taxes is void\u2014the remedy is complete at law. Where the legislative enactment levying a tax, is unconstitutional, a sale to satisfy such tax is void, and in proceedings thereunder, to dispossess a party so in default, his remedy at law would be complete.\nWbit oe Ebbob to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Edward T. Rice, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. McClernand, Broadwell & Springer, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Stuart, Edwards & Brown, and Mr. John E. Rosette, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 233
}