Case ID: ill_1/html/0070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Justice John Reynolds.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ninian Edwards, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Beaird, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO ST. CLAIR.
    A bill may be dismissed in all cases on motion, when the court is satisfied there is no equity in it.
    The act of 1819-, laying a tax on certain property, makes no distinction between residents and non-residents—the lien attaches on the property, and not on the person.
    Edwards filed a bill in chancery against Beaird, as sheriff of St. Clair county, in the circuit court of that county, stating that he was not a resident of St. Clair county, and that the county court of said county had levied a tax on town lots, the property of complainant, from which he prayed to be relieved, and that Beaird might be enjoined from collecting the tax assessed upon them. The defendant appeared, and moved the court to dismiss the bill, which motion the court sustained and dismissed the bill; to reverse which opinion, Edwards prosecuted a writ of error.
   , Opinion of the Court by

Justice John Reynolds.

The act of the 27th March, 1819, on the subject of laying a tax on certain property, makes no distinction between residents and non-residents. The whole tenor of the statute shows that the lien is created on the property to be taxed, and not on the owner of the property. All property of a certain description, in which town lots are included, is subject to be taxed by the county court. It is objected that the bill was dismissed on the defendant’s motion. This may be done in all cases where the court is satisfied there is no equity in the face of the bill. The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       Laws of 1819, page 313.
     
      
       Affirmed in Fisher v. Stone, 3 Scam., 68; Parkinson v. Trousdale, id., 371; State Bank v. Stanton, 2 Gilm., 352; Puterbaugh v. Elliott et al., 22 Ill., 157.