, 1874-06-21
Decision of tho Supreme Court in
the Case Of Adsit rs. Lieb.
The Decree of the Cook Couu-
ty Court Affirmed.
The Board Of Equalization Possess Mo
Power to Redress Individual
Grievances.
Appellants Mistake Was in Not Seek.
ing Remedy Before the
County Board.
Special Dttpa&eh 10 Tbs CHICAGO 1tt6nas

Special DttpaeA 10 Tbs CHICAGO 1Fibaas.
SfRrNGF1kLD, Ill, Juno %.
James u. Ads1t Is. Herman Lab l. Co. Appeal hp.a
Cook. 0pinion Of The Court bu liz. Justie. Scao,-
fttd
appellant W7s banker doing business euch IN tho
Town OF South Chicago. in Cook County. He WA ~
eesse BY the Town Assessor OF that town for the ptx-
Of ,1e9 for 1s s for %
10 draft, In tho aggregate $4,000 and hrs
and burearproof safe, s5o making total Of s7sso.
by tue Board ot Supervisors Of tho county, but ths
State Board Of Equalization, in equallzng the
nents Of the different counties Of the STATE added es
er cent to the usscssment Ut Cook County, md there
by Increased tho appellants assessment from {47.550
to It is argued that the Legislature, having
provided by law for the asseaaurut OF property
by local Assessors, had no authority under tho
Constitution to create sase Board Of Equalization
md nvs't wi with power to change the ,aues d.
Constitution which is supposed to 1elae to tha qus-
ton IL II follows:
may bo useful By levyng tax by valuation that
every person and corporation shall lay in proper
ton to the ruo Of his, her, its property, Value
to be ascertained by somo ptrson Ut persons to bo
elected or appointed In such manner ~ tho General
Assembly shall direct, and not otherwise"
tutiou Of lsis a relates to thi, question. S.ato
Board Of Equalization created by act approved
March 1917, invested With similar powers to thoao
ln72 That act remained in fo1ce until superseaed by
the Iast-naned act.
By this court 4 tho u January NJ term, 1sss,
ss asa Sa Tss eon.'aons.,
held be within the authority possessed by the Legis
atnre under the Constitution. When. therefore, tho
guago quoted, and 1n.de 1t part Of tho Constitution
then adopted, it known that al the departments
Of thu State Government held that it did not prohibit
the Legislature from creating 8tats Board Of Equal
zation, and investing it with power to eGunlizo ths
assessments at the different counties for the purpose
Of producing uniformity IN the valuation. 10 .na
should not possess this power it is Impossible to boz
ueve that ts would not have been prohibited
in unaIubfguous Language.
We haye 1T ,hs present term, In Porter ct a. n. ths
II. L. l. St. L. T. R Company. held that It ~aa
compe.en: to Invest the Board OF Equalization with
authority to make original assessments Of corpor1t&
property, aud 1t is to repeat what hex<
said with reference to the power possessed BY
III whom assessments shall be ulads. The wrong,
II such 1t BE- under which appellant suherA results, Il
mutt presume from the fact that, when hts prop.
erty assea.cd the local Assessor assesse
relatively too high. Thero is aveFIent In tho bill
by which thus presumption Ia excluded, and 1t IL sup
Which Proceeded upon tho hypothesis that he aveEsg
valuation In that county waa C Per cent too low.
The Board Of Equalization Possesses no power u
valuations. Their duty IL confined to oquanzing ,hs
general valuations; but bJ Sec s6 Of the Revenue
act In force J4s J. provided that IN coqnsc1
Supervisor of the town shan meet OIL tha fourth Mob
day OF June for the purpose OF reviewing tho asseso
ncnt Of property such town, and The application
Of any person considering himeelf agRrioved, whe
shall complain that the property Of another Ii asscsscd
too lo~ they shall 5ey1ew tbs a.. assessment ,s. a2d
| complaint that another IL as4ensed too Low
shall be acted upon until the person ha agant ahal
10 notified Of such complaint No effort appears u
been made BY the appellant to have relief undea
thtso sections and, h~';nR uegccted to avail himself
Of the legal remedy thus provided him. cannot non
have relief in court Of equity Getty OF Peoria Kid
DER 18th ILL.,, a57). In tha, 1t said, It ID
rule Of uniform application int wlufc party has
complete remedy It law, and having the opportunity
sunbers upon his right, fa;ls to nstAt upon IT
court Of equity viii nut afl,: relief Tho objection
th3t appellant lls notice cf :s;e loard Of EIuahz4
ton oe Of zctton In rntc1i1le. Tho Inv IL pub
lie onc which Irescrbes the dut&e4 aud desRnates tht
tino Of meeting OF tho BoA1d, aud all citizens an
bound to tako notice Of tho constitutional obligation
upon the Legialature requiring tlAt such notice shat
10 provided for, and that an appeal shall be allowed
from ths action OF the Board orer ct a. l., h
i. 4 ST. L. T. ~ Tcrceiying no error In the record.
| tho doczcs Of shs conr. below is affirmed