The Cairo evening bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1868-1870, 1869-11-26
TKE aANDAMUs CASE.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME counT.
The Realtors Entitled to the City's Sur.
plus Funds.
IMPORTANT ISSUES, ETC.


City Council of the City of Cairo, as pro-
nounced by Breese, c. j., has been pub
lished, and as 1t involves matters OF con.
siderable local interest, we have thought
7 70 advisable to lay before our readers at
least the leading points.
The suit was based, it will be remem-
bered, upon Messrs. Fox, Howard Il Co.'s
petition for a inandamus against the
City Council, to compel them to pay
certain Judgment obtained by the rsla.
tors against them, for grading and fill
ing certain streets in the city u Cairo.
The petition sets out the powers Of the
city council, under the charter, to levy
taxes and set aside receipts from other
sources, to create the General" "Inter.
| est, and Improvement funds; and
then goes O n TO show the financial status
of the city. 1t also sets up that under
the power vested in them by the charter,
the council had Issued large amount OF
bonds % raise money forpublic improve
ments and other purposes; that the bonds
were duly signed and sealed, and placed
in the custody of the comptroller, who is
the fiscal agent Of the city; and that Of
such bonds the comptroller still retained
In his hands the sum Of $500 which
the city might sell and apply on the
judgment Of REALTORS.
The relAtors then alieYe that on oh.
tanning their judgment against the city,
ii was the duty OF the council TO levy
and collect tax OF one half OF one per
centum, upon sil property, both real and
personal, subject to taxation, and to pay
the amount realized .herefrom upon their
Judgment; that II was the duty of the
council to levy and collect further tax
of one quarter OF one per centum, as
Aforesaid, and pay the amount realized
upon the interest due upon their judg.
ment; and they further allege that 1t
was the duty OF the city to sell the said
SIS. go ia bonds and apply the proceeds
toward the payment OF their judgment.
The refusal OF the city to levy the said
taxes and to sell the said bonds being
Averred, the rslstsrs proceed 70 pray that
mandamus may issue compelling the
city to levy and collect the taxes and sell
the bonds Aforesaid, and TO apply the
isrscesds TO the payment OF the principal
and Interest OF their judgmest.
The city responded that the power Of
the council TO tax In limited; that the
taxes for the General fund and the I'm.
provement fund are not payable exclu-
sively in money, but that the scrip issned
by the city must 10 taken in payment OF
the taxes imposed 10 create those funds;
that such scrip Is annually issued by the
council to the amount OF $4,000. and Is
not worth more than sixty.hve cents on
the dollar. They aver that neither the
General fund, the Improvement fund
nor the Interest fund 10 available for the
payment of the REALTORS judgment, for
the reason that the council has no right
70 levy aud collec, taxes, except for the
purposes expressed in the act creating
the aforesaid funds, nor has the council
the right 10 levy to an amount that will
exceed the limits expressed In said act.
The respondents then proceed 10 show
that the revenues Of the city do not ex'
eeed the expenditures, and furnish de.
tails that show an annual absorption OF
all the moneys collected for the different
funds. The respondents question the
legality OF the bonds, SIS, 900 OF which re-
main in the comptroller's hands, and
aver that II the same were sold they
would not bring more than 65 cents on
the dollar, and that In any event, they
could not be applied TO the payment OF
REALTORS judgment,
The respondents further say that when
the contract was made for filling the
streets both parties relied for payment
on the power Of the city to levy and
collect assessments on the lots TO be BEN
Gifted; that the mode adopted having
been decided, Harmed case) to be I'M
constitutional, they were deprived
OF the expected moneys; but
that, since then they have obtained leg
islation 10 enable them TO raise mon
ey = to pay relstors" Judgment,
and have ordered an assess
ment on the property benefited of
$4,000 expressly for that purpose. In.
formalities in the amended charter and
inequalities In the assessment a.'e urged
as cause for the delay that ensued. The
REALTORS are entitled to no relief beyond
that afforded by assessments on the pro-
perty benefited, except by legislation,
and the respondents claim that they are,
in good faith, seeking that legislation.
, a The court, in reviewing the case, de-
clared that respondents had not taken
correct view Of the REALTORS rights; but
wa have no space for the errors pointed