Baum v. Gill

Illinois Supreme Court

Baum v. Gill

2 N.E.2d 74, 363 Ill. 291

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1936

DocketNo. 23292. Decree affirmed.

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.E.2d 74 (Baum v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baum v. Gill, 2 N.E.2d 74, 363 Ill. 291 (Ill. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court:

A bill for injunction was filed by Mervyn Winston Baum against Joseph L. Gill, as county collector, and Anna L. Cimral, to restrain the presentation and execution of an agreement approved by the county court of Cook county pursuant to an act of the General Assembly entitled, “An act in relation to the payment in installments of unpaid, forfeited or delinquent taxes on real estate situated in counties containing 500,000 or more inhabitants, and to provide for enforcement of such payment.” This act is known as the Saltiel act.

It is conceded by appellants that if said act is unconstitutional the decree of the circuit court is correct. That question was submitted to us in People v. Jarecki, (ante, p. 180,) and we held that the act is unconstitutional. That decision is controlling in this case, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court:

A bill for injunction was filed by Mervyn Winston Baum against Joseph L. Gill, as county collector, and Anna L. Cimral, to restrain the presentation and execution of an agreement approved by the county court of Cook county pursuant to an act of the General Assembly entitled, “An act in relation to the payment in installments of unpaid, forfeited or delinquent taxes on real estate situated in counties containing 500,000 or more inhabitants, and to provide for enforcement of such payment.” This act is known as the Saltiel act.

It is conceded by appellants that if said act is unconstitutional the decree of the circuit court is correct. That question was submitted to us in People v. Jarecki, (ante, p. 180,) and we held that the act is unconstitutional. That decision is controlling in this case, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.E.2d 74, 363 Ill. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-v-gill-ill-1936.