State v. Sullivant, 51 Ill. 486 (1869)

Sept. 1869 · Illinois Supreme Court

51 Ill. 486

The State of Illinois v Michael L. Sullivant.

1. Taxes—preventing tTwi/r collection by the vote of a town meeting. The town authorities of two adjacent towns, the two towns together forming one military district, at a joint meeting levied upon their respective towns a bounty tax, under the act of February 2,1865. Subsequently, at a town meeting held in one of the towns, it was voted not to collect the tax in that town: Hdd, there was no law authorizing the collection of the tax to be thus prevented.

2. Same—effect of a failure of one of the towns to collect the tax. It was the duty of .each town to collect the tax; but a failure on the part of one of them, in that respect, would afford no reason why the other town should not be permitted to collect the tax assessed in that town, notwithstanding the two towns together formed one military district.

Weit op Eee'oe to the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. H. B. Deoius, Judge, presiding.

The opinion of ihe court contains a sufficient statement of the case.

Hr. Charles J. Beattie, for the plaintiff in error.

Hr. A. E. Harding- and Hr. S. T. Fosdick, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an application for judgment for taxes. The judgment was refused in the court below, so far as related to certain bounty taxes levied under section 8 of the bounty tax law of February 2,1865, to be found in Yol. I Private Laws of 1865, page 103. The only reason given by counsel in this court why judgment should not have been rendered is, that the tax was levied only in the town of Sullivan, while it should also have been levied in the town of Saunamin, the two towns together forming one military district. This objection is not sustained by the record. That shows a tax was levied by the joint boards of both towns on the 20th of February, 1865. It is true, at a town meeting held in January, 1866, in Saunamin, it was voted not to collect the tax in that town, but we are advised of no law authorizing the collection of this tax to be thus prevented, nor does the record show whether it was actually collected in Saunamin or not. But that is immaterial. Having been properly levied, so far as appears, in both towns, it was the duty of each to proceed with the collection. If Saunamin has failed to perform its duty, parties interested can have their remedy, but its failure is no reason why the authorities of the town of Sullivan should not be permitted to collect the tax assessed in that town. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.