Court Opinion

ID: 6968325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:57:54.256391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:08:41.963176
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cartwright delivered the opinion of the court: The treasurer of St. Clair county applied to the county court of said county for a judgment against the property of appellant for a balance of taxes levied by the city of East St. Louis for the year 1897, which appellant had refused to pay. Appellant appeared and made objection that the unpaid balance was levied and extended without authority of law. The objection was overruled and there was a judgment and order of sale. The city of East St. Louis is organized under the general law for the incorporation of cities and villages, and the aggregate amount of taxes which it may levy in any one year, exclusive of the amount levied for payment of bonded indebtedness, with interest thereon, is limited to two per cent upon the aggregate valuation of all property within said city subject to taxation therein, as the same was equalized for State and city taxes for the preceding year. (Hurd’s Stat. sec. 1, art. 8, chap. 24; People v. Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co. 167 Ill. 283.) The tax in question exceeded two per cent of such aggregate valuation after eliminating from the levy the sums appropriated for the payment of a judgment against the public library and reading room, for the maintenance of the library, and for the payment of the judgment of W. McK. Hubbard against the city for bonded indebtedness, about which items there is no dispute. The remaining items, as stated in the ordinance, are as follows: For supplying water to the city.............................$17,000 For electric street lighting ................................. 16,000 For streets, alleys and bridges............................... 20,000 For sewerage................................................ 2,000 For police department....................................... 10,000 For fire department.......................................... 12,500 For officers’ fees and salaries................................ 5,000 For public buildings and grounds............................ 2,000 For election purposes........................................ 3,500 For printing................................................ 2,000 For litigation expenses.....'................................ 1,500 For city court................;.............................. 5,000 For contingent expenses .................................... 1,000 For payment of judgment, interest and costs case of J. M. Freels v. City of East St. Louis............................... 8,000 It was agreed at the hearing that the judgment in favor of Freels was for legal services, and not for bonded indebtedness. It was therefore to be included with the other items in the levy, which, in the aggregate, must not exceed the limitation of two per cent. It was agreed that a levy of two per cent was necessary to pay the ordinary expenses of the city for which the levy was made, and it is insisted that a levy for the payment of the judgment might be in excess of the statutory limitation. We can see no foundation for this claim. It might.be very convenient and desirable to raise as much as the law will permit and expend it for other purposes, and make an additional levy to pay the judgment; but the statute can not be evaded in. that way. The only difference in respect to the judgment is, that a legal liability has been fixed and the city is bound to pay it, and, being bound to keep within the limitation, must abate from the sums which the officials would like to expend, sufficient to bring the entire levy within the two per cent. The decisions in City of East St. Louis v. Amy, 120 U. S. 600, and City of East St. Louis v. People, 124 Ill. 655, have no relation to this question. In each of those cases the obligation was a bonded indebtedness, which the constitution required the city to levy a sufficient tax to pay, and was of a class excepted from the limitation by the statute under consideration. The judgment against appellant’s property for the excess in the amount levied for" current expenses and the payment of the Freels judgment above the two per cent limitation was erroneous. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded. „ 7 , 7 7 Reversed and remanded.