, 1873-05-05
MILITARY BOUNTY TAX,

Tho Livingstone County Military
Isounty Lnnd-Tn1 Judgment Case
Decited--The Judgment OF the Low.
er Court Affirnlcu--Opinfon OF tho
Supreme Court.
Tho following decision Of tho Supreme Court
Of this State on tho appealed case, Michael n.
sulliyant Y. Tho gtato OF Illinois, VIC find In tho
Legal Ne,os, It refers to tho military bounty
tax, which towns i'll this Slate arc hold under an
act Of 1865 to have had M implied power to
'raiHo to refund money advanced by indiviluala
to pay bounties to volunteers, on the faith OF
the liability OF tho towns to toimburHe them;
and the opinion declares tho law, in this
connection, as to whothor a judgment upon
certain lands for the non-paymont
Of anid bounty tax, can be set aside on the ground
that the said tux was loviod before the passage
to assessments for taxes naado..by Asseasors who
hayo not qualified by taking an oath of office az
to tho validity Of the acts Of Assessor facto
and as to tho evidence admissible in similar
caBea.
Tho opinion is by Justice Sheldon, AZ followas
This was IN application for Judgment aganst certa'n
lands for ta1os. The tnx In question levied under
tho at Of Feb. 2 1885, authorizing the lsyy :ot
drafted Into the army Of the United satos."
funding private subscriptions ralred to pay boun-
ties to volunteers. It waa held IN this sae Of
Illinois V. 8ulYant, ~ ILL., A9-that BY thia Inv an
implied power given 10 leyy and collect ta1 to
refund money advanced by individuals after tha
passage OF tho net, tho faith Of tho expected tax
The money here, doubt, advanced tho faith
of tho expected tn1, but tho objection made that
It advanced before not after, the passage OF tho
nct The certificate Of KoyB, Provost Marshal and tho
report Of tho Committee, Stone and arilIln, wero
properly rejected by the Court lnconpe-
tent evidence. The papers, although fo1lnd among
tho files Of tho Town Clerks office, wero
not such papors authorized by law to
be filed, md were not proper ca Of the otlco thoy
not tho beat evidence Of the matters aonght to 10
proved, aud were but unaworu statements. From
examination Of tho testimony sdduccd before tho
Court cannot any that 1t clearly appears that tho
moneys were advanced to tho volunteers before tho
pasange Of said ACT to call upon to disturb the
finding Of tho Court upon that point. Another obJec-
tion made Is, that Taylor tho AsHesaor OF the taxesl
waB sworn before q Town CLERK iuatoad Of before
a Justico Of tho Peace lo should have bean.
Tho statnte prescribca that every Town
Assessor, before he enters upon the dutIea
Of Ills Office, shall take and subscribe oath, etc.
Tho principle Ia well settled that the acts OF ocsrs do
facto valid md eeosnal when they concern tho
public, the rights Of third parsons, as though they
were officers do ]ure their tla to the Office cannot DO
inquired into coaterally. pr!tchstt Y. People, Gi
o25 Hoprcr '. Ferguson, % ill., 437 The People v.
Collins, Johns, $40 Wilcox v. Smith, Wond., 23l !;
Ducknam '. nuggles 16 sss., 18o. We will not re-
fuse Judgment, eysn II Taylor WAS not sworn by tho
propc. officer. On application for such Judgment,
we will only look to thnt thero wAs an officer dc
faco who assessed. The Judgment Of tho Court beow
must b0 affirmed.