Scarritt v. Chapman, 11 Ill. 443 (1849)

Dec. 1849 · Illinois Supreme Court

11 Ill. 443

Jonathan A. Scarritt, plaintiff in error, vs. Sarah Ann Chapman, defendant in error.

Error to Madison.

The precept under which the sheriff makes sale of lands for the non-payment- of fcaxe>', need not run in the name of the people.

This was an action of debt, brought by defendant in error under the statute to recover penalties for cutting trees. The defendant below admitted the cutting and carrying away of the trees at the time and place mentioned in the declaration, and the only question contested was, whether the plaintiff below had a good title in fee simple to the land on which the timber was cut.

It was agreed that one Robert W. Finch, under whom the defendant below claimed title, was the owner in fee simple of the land on which the trees were cut, at the time the same was sold for the non-payment of taxes. Whereupon the plaintiff below, to prove the tax title of the person under whom she claimed, offered in evidence a judgment against the land in the declaration mentioned, for taxes rendered in the Madison Circuit Court, Á. D. 1845. The plaintiff then offered to read in evidence the process upon which the land was sold, and which was issued on said judgment. The defendant objected to the reading of this, because such process did not run in the name of the people, and because it was not directed to the sheriff of Madison county. Thereupon plaintiff’s counsel moved to amend said process, by adding to the beginning of said process, the words “ The People of the state of Illinois to the sheriff of Madison county—Greeting;” which motion was allowed, and said amendment was accordingly made. The plaintiff below then offered in evidence a deed for the land in the declaration mentioned, from the sheriff of Madison county to one Chapman, under and by virtue of the sale made on said process; and also a deed from said Chapman to the said plaintiff; which being all the evidence offered, the Court, Underwood, Judge, presiding, at the March term, 1849, found for the plaintiff, and rendered judgment against the defendant below for eight dollars, and costs. Thereupon said defendant sued out this writ of error, and assigns for error, the allowing of the amendment, and that the process under which the land was sold was void, because it did not run in the name of the people.

Levi Davis and Nelson G. Edwards, for plaintiff in error»

Wm. Martin, for defendant in error.

Opinion by Treat, C. J.:

The only question in this case is whether the precept, under which the sheriff makes sale of lands for the non-payment of taxes, must run in the name of the people of the state of Illinois. The precise question was before the Court in the case of Curry vs. Hinman, ante, 420; and it was there held that the precept is not process, within the meaning of the constitution, and need not, therefore, run in the name of the people. The Circuit Court having so decided, its judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed»