Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Binkert

106 Ill. 298, 1883 Ill. LEXIS 169
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 106 Ill. 298 (Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Binkert) 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
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Binkert, 106 Ill. 298, 1883 Ill. LEXIS 169 (Ill. 1883).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, brought against the collectors of taxes for some twenty-three counties in this State, to restrain the collection of certain road and bridge taxes levied by highway commissioners in the respective counties for the year 1881, upon the ground that the taxes were levied on the assessment of the then current year, (1881,) instead of on that of the previous year, (1880,) the assessment in the latter year being lower than that for 1881. The court below sustained a demurrer to the bill, and dismissed it, and the complainant appealed.

The suit involves the construction of section 119 of the Boad and Bridge act of 1879, (Laws 1879, p. 257,) which section is as follows: “The highway commissioners of each town shall annually ascertain, as near as practicable, how much money must be raised by tax on real and personal property for the making and repairing of bridges, etc., * * * during the ensuing year, commencing on Tuesday next preceding the annual town meeting, which tax shall be extended on the tax boohs according to the assessment of the previous year, and shall levy a tax on all the real and personal property in said town, not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars; and they shall give to the supervisor of the township a statement of the amount necessary to be raised, and the rate per cent of taxation, signed by said commissioners, or a majority of them, on or before the Tuesday next preceding the annual September meeting of the board of supervisors, who shall cause the same to be submitted to said board for their action at such September meeting of said board. ” These highway commissioners do not extend the tax on the tax books, but that is done by the county clerk, as the next section (120) of the same act provides, as follows : “According to the amount certified as aforesaid, the county clerk, when making out the tax books for State and county taxes for the collector, shall extend the necessary tax in a separate column against each tax-payer’s name, or taxable property, as other taxes are extended, which shall be collected the same as State and county taxes. ”

The controversy arises upon the phrase in section 119, • “which tax shall be extended on the tax books according to the assessment of the previous year, ” and more particularly as to the meaning of the words, “according to the assessment of the previous year, ”—whether the tax is to be extended upon the assessment made in the current year,—the year in which the highway commissioners meet to make the levy,—or upon the assessment made in the year previous.

The impression upon the reading of the section certainly is that the extension of the tax is to be upon the assessment of the previous year. Such seems to be the literal reading. But for the ascertaining of the real meaning we are not to be confined to the words employed, but may look to the former law, and to other statutory provisions. The first provision for this distinct road and bridge tax appears to have been by the statute of-1874. (Bev. Stat. 1874, p. 932, sec. 120.) The law of 1874 upon the subject is the same as this present law of 1879, section 120 of the former corresponding to section 119 of the latter, except that in the latter the additional clause which is italicized in the above citation of section 119 is inserted, and the provision in respect to this tax being that the highway commissioners shall levy a tax on all the real and personal property in the town, “not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars, ” being silent as to what valuation was to be adopted. Section 16 of the law of 1874 provided for a distinct district road tax, and required the highway commissioners to assess a road tax on all real and -personal property to any amount they might deem necessary, not exceeding forty cents on each one hundred dollars worth, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year, ” and section 120, as to the road and bridge tax, required that the commissioners should levy it on all the real and personal property in the town, not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars, not naming any manner of ascertaining the valuation.

In the statute of 1877, (Laws 1877, page 196,) these two sections, 16 and 120, of the law of 1874, providing for these two distinct taxes,—the district road tax, and the road and bridge tax,—were combined in one section,—section 81. That section (81) provides:

“First—The commissioners of highways of each town shall annually ascertain, as near as practicable, how much money must be raised by tax on real and personal property for the making and repairing of roads only, to any amount they may deem necessary, not exceeding forty cents on each one hundred dollars worth, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year, ” and certify the same as hereinafter provided. * * *
“Second—They shall annually ascertain, as near as practicable, how much money must be raised by tax on real and personal property for the making and repairing of bridges, etc., * * and shall levy a tax on all the real and personal property in said town, not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars.”

So far, no statute speaks of extending this road and bridge tax on the tax books according to the assessment of the previous year. The statute of 1874 said merely that the tax should be levied, “not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars. ” Section 16 of that act, providing for the district road tax, did name how the valuation was to be got for that tax, saying the tax was not to be exceeding forty cents on each one hundred dollars worth of property, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year. ” Now, section 81 of the statute of 1877 combining those two sections into one section, says, the highway commissioners shall, first, determine a the amount of the district road tax, not exceeding forty cents on each one hundred dollars, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year; ” second, they shall ascertain and levy this road and bridge tax, “not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars. ” Although it is not right here named how this last valuation is to be got, yet we think, from the manner in which these two clauses are coupled together, that it is to be taken as having reference to the first clause, and to be the same valuation as there named, viz, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year; ” that there should be the same basis of valuation in both the cases, no reason being perceived for any difference, and that, being named in the first clause, it was not deemed necessary to repeat it in the second clause. It was not contemplated that the commissioners of highways should themselves value the property, and they must necessarily take the valuation of some one year made by the assessor. They can not take the' assessment of the current year, as that will not have been made until a long time after their action,—they must take the assessment of some previous year. In the first clause of this section 81, for the district road tax, it is specifically named that it shall be the valuation of the previous year*, and we think that same valuation was to be taken in the second clause for the road and bridge tax, so that we find the true reading of section 81 of the law of 1877 to be, that this road and bridge tax was to be levied on all property in the town, not exceeding forty cents on the one hundred dollars, “as valued on the assessment roll of the previous year.”

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

Related

Miller v. Anderson
269 Ill. 608 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1915)
Allen v. Oliver
1912 OK 224 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Town of Eufaula v. Gibson
1908 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Manufacturers' Exhibition Building Co. v. Landay
76 N.E. 146 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Bradley v. Lightcap
66 N.E. 546 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1903)
Harrison v. People
92 Ill. App. 643 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1901)
Canal Comrs. v. Sanitary District of Chicago
184 Ill. 597 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Hide & Leather National Bank v. West
20 Ill. App. 61 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 Ill. 298, 1883 Ill. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wabash-st-louis-pacific-railway-co-v-binkert-ill-1883.