People Ex Rel. Bailey v. Illinois Central Railroad

95 N.E.2d 352, 407 Ill. 426, 1950 Ill. LEXIS 459
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1950
Docket31618
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 N.E.2d 352 (People Ex Rel. Bailey v. Illinois Central Railroad) 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
People Ex Rel. Bailey v. Illinois Central Railroad, 95 N.E.2d 352, 407 Ill. 426, 1950 Ill. LEXIS 459 (Ill. 1950).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, having previously paid its taxes in full, under protest, filed objections in the county court of Macon County to an application of the county collector for a judgment against, and an order for the sale of, real estate for the nonpayment of taxes for the year 1948 levied by seven townships for road and bridge purposes and by Macon County Non-High School District No. 200 for educational purposes. From the judgment overruling these objections, defendant appeals.

The same factual situation obtains with respect to the objections against the taxes for road and bridge purposes levied by Decatur, Hickory Point, Illini, Mt. Zion, South Wheatland and Whitmore townships. There is a minor but, in our opinion, immaterial variation in the facts relating to the levy of Friends Creek Township. The facts need be narrated only with respect to Decatur Township. The board of town auditors of the township gave its consent in writing to the extension by the commissioner of highways of an additional tax rate of eight cents for the year 1945 for road and bridge purposes, thereby making a maximum rate for the year 1945 of thirty-three cents per $100 of assessed valuation of the taxable property in the township. For the year 1948, its highway commissioner levied $150,000 for road and bridge purposes and certified to the county board of supervisors a rate of .125 on each $100 of assessed valuation.. The county clerk computed and extended the 1948 tax rate of .084 under section 162a of the Revenue Act, based upon a rate of 33 cents, the maximum permissible rate for road and bridge purposes prior to January 1, 1946, where the highway commissioner had obtained the consent of the board of town auditors to the levy of a rate in excess of 25 cents, the maximum permissible rate without this consent.

By its objection, defendant charged that, since no consent was obtained to the extension of an additional rate for the year 1948, the computation should have been made upon the maximum rate of .125 cents (formerly 25 cents) per $100 assessed valuation extendible prior to January 1, 1946, without the consent of the board of town auditors rather than the rate of .165, (formerly 33 cents,) and that, accordingly, the rate of .084 extended for road and bridge purposes was illegal to the extent of .021.

The challenged taxes were levied under section 56 of “An Act to revise the law in relation to roads and bridges,” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, chap. 121, par. 62,) which, so far as relevant, provides that, on the first Tuesday in September, the highway commissioner in each township district shall annually determine and certify to the county board the amount necessary to be raised by taxation for the proper construction, maintenance and repair of roads and bridges in such township district. The amount certified by the county board, it is provided, shall be extended by the county clerk as taxes against the taxable property of the district; provided, that the county clerk shall not extend against the taxable property of any township district a rate in excess of .165 per cent of the full, fair cash value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue; nor against the taxable property of any town a rate in excess of .125 per cent of the full, fair cash value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue, unless before the first Tuesday in September, the highway commissioner of the town has secured the written consent of a majority of the members of the board of town auditors to the extension of a greater rate, and in such case the rate shall not exceed that approved by a majority of the members of the board, and in no case shall it exceed .165 per cent of the full, fair cash value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue, except as is otherwise provided in four sections not involved here. Section 56 concludes, “Provided, further, that the foregoing limitations upon tax rates are subject to the provisions of Section 162a of the ‘Revenue Act of 1939/ filed May 17, 1939, as amended.”

Section 162a, as amended, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, chap. 120, par. 643a,) to the extent it applies to the formula determining the tax rate for road and bridge purposes for the year 1948, provides that, after the effective date of the amendatory act of 1947 and until December 31, 1952, with certain exceptions not material here, “no tax for any fund of any taxing district shall be extended at a rate requiring a greater percentage than, and no tax rate necessary to produce the amount of a levy for any fund of any taxing district shall be restricted to a lesser percentage than, 105% of whichever is lower of the following: * * * (b) the rate produced by dividing the maximum permissible 1945 tax extension for that fund of the taxing district by the 1946 full 100% fair cash value of the taxable property in the taxing district; provided that the maximum permissible 1945 tax extension shall be computed by use of the maximum tax rate in effect or authorized prior to January 1, 1946, whether established by referendum or statute, applied to the 1945 assessment.”

Application of the formula described resulted in the tax rates extended by the seven townships for taxes for roads and bridges. One of the components of the formula prescribed by section 162a is the “maximum permissible 1945 tax extension” which, it is provided, shall be computed by use of the maximum tax rate in effect or authorized prior to January 1, 1946. The manifest legislative intent is that it is not the actual 1945 tax extension in every instance which is to be used as a factor in the formula but, instead, that the maximum permissible tax extension is to be used. Although the language of the statute is clear, defendant repeatedly refers to the maximum 1945 tax extension rather than to the maximum permissible 1945 extension and, also, ignores the portion of section 162a requiring the use of the maximum tax rate “in effect or authorized prior to January 1, 1946, whether established by referendum or statute.” The maximum permissible tax extension for 1945 would be based upon a tax rate of 33 cents, the maximum permissible tax rate in effect, and which was established by statute. If any one of the seven townships had, by referendum, established a greater permissible tax rate, the rate so established or permitted by referendum would be used under the formula fixed in section 162a. No one of the townships, however, had permitted by referendum the extension of a greater rate than 33 cents in 1945.

By use of the maximum permissible tax rate of 33 cents, the extension for road and bridge purposes in 1945 was $137,493.57. By applying the formula described in section 162a, the maximum tax rate for Decatur Township for the year 1948 is .084, being determined as follows: 105 times the maximum extension at the rate of 33 cents in 1945? namely, $137,493.57, divided by the 1946 full 100 per cent fair cash value, $173,529,349. Defendant asserts that the tax rate, .084, rests upon an assumption by the county clerk that a consent obtained from the board of town auditors in 1945 remains in effect in computing the maximum tax rate extendible in each year during the five-year transition period established by section 162a.

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

Related

People ex rel. Village of Inverness v. Barrett
187 N.E.2d 349 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1962)
People ex rel. Rose v. New York Central Railroad
174 N.E.2d 809 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
Prohm v. Non-High School District No. 216
130 N.E.2d 917 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1955)
People Ex Rel. Ross v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
103 N.E.2d 79 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1951)
McLain v. Phelps
100 N.E.2d 753 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 N.E.2d 352, 407 Ill. 426, 1950 Ill. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-bailey-v-illinois-central-railroad-ill-1950.