Case Name: The People ex rel. Henry Stuckart, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Marie A. Raithel, Appellant
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-02-21
Citations: 277 Ill. 597
Docket Number: No. 11174
Parties: The People ex rel. Henry Stuckart, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Marie A. Raithel, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 277
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
(No. 11174.
Reversed in part and remanded.)
The People ex rel. Henry Stuckart, County Collector, Appellee, vs. Marie A. Raithel, Appellant.
Opinion filed February 21, 1917
Rehearing denied April 17, 1917.
This case is controlled by the decisions in People v. Day, {ante, p. 543,) and People v. Huey, {ante, p. 561.)
Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. John H. Williams, Judge, presiding.
Thomas W. Reilly, (Francis A. Harper, of counsel,) for appellant.
Maclay HoynE, State’s Attorney, (Samuel A. Et-TELSON, Corporation Counsel, Charles Center Case, Jr., Felsenthal & Wilson, William F. Struckmann, Edmund D. Adcock, Ross C. Hall, Walter E. Beebe, Leon Hornstein, and Joseph F. Grossman, of counsel,) for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Carter
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal of Marie A. Raithel from the judgment of the county court of Cook county rendered on the hearing of the application of the county collector for judgment against her property for taxes for the year 1915.
The objections to the taxes in this case are in the main the same objections that were urged in the case of People v. Day, (ante, p. 543.) The other objections raised here that were not raised in People v. Day, supra, were raised in People v. Huey, (ante, p. 561.) The points urged in the briefs and arguments of the respective parties in those two cases, taken together, are substantially the same on all points as those urged in the briefs and arguments in this case. The decisions in those cases are therefore decisive on the questions raised here. For the reasons given in the opinions in those cases the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause remanded.
Reversed in part and remanded.