Case Name: Nicholas Hunsaker et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. B. S. Harrell et al., Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1863-01
Citations: 30 Ill. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas Hunsaker et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. B. S. Harrell et al., Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Nicholas Hunsaker et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. B. S. Harrell et al., Defendants in Error.
ERROR TO ALEXANDER.
This case presents the same questions as the preceding, and the decision is the same.
This was a suit in chancery, commenced by the" defendants in error, in the Alexander Circuit Court, June term, 1860, by bill in chancery for injunction.
Defendants charge they were residents and property holders of the city of Cairo, on the first day of May, 1859. That in 1857 Cairo was incorporated as a city. In 1859 the legislature passed an amendatory act, providing that the real and personal estate in Cairo shall from thence forever be exempt from taxation for county purposes.
That at the March term of the Alexander County Court an order was passed, assessing a tax on all property in Alexander county, both real and personal, including that in Cairo, for county purposes. That the assessor proceeded to assess defendant’s property. That Nicholas Hunsacker is about to collect said taxes of complainants and others; and prays an injunction.
Plaintiffs in error filed their demurrer to this bill, and rely on the constitution and laws of this State.
The court overruled the demurrer, and made the injunction perpetual.
Plaintiffs bring the cause to this court by writ of error, and assign for error:
The court erred in overruling the demurrer.
The bill of complaint is not sufficient in law.
The decree was for Bailey Harrell and others, when by law it should have been for N. Hunsacker and others.
Wh. J. Yost, and J. Dougherty & Son, for Plaintiffs in Error.

Opinion:
Walker, J.
The facts in this case are the same as in the case of Ilunsaker et al. v. Wright et al., determined at the present term of this court. The same questions being involved, it is not deemed necessary to discuss them here. The decree of the court below is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.