Court Opinion

ID: 9713838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:23:49.63616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.894811
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Hershey, dissenting: To deny a hearing on the merits because of a pleading defect seems to me violative of both the letter and spirit of modern procedural statutes and rules of practice. As a result of both legislative enactment and prior judicial opinion, this court is committed to the position that pleadings are to be liberally construed with a view of doing substantial justice between the parties. Section 235 of the Revenue Act of 1939 requires a taxpayer to specify “the particular cause of objection” and directs the court to “determine the matter in a summary manner, without pleadings, and * * * pronounce judgment as the right of the case may be.” To determine the sufficiency of a tax objection from a “pleading” standpoint, one must consider whether it adequately informs the court and opposing counsel of the defense relied upon. (People v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. 281 Ill. 500, 503; People v. Shortall, 287 Ill. 150, 151.) In the instant case I do not understand how there could have been the slightest doubt as to the nature of the defense. If the objection were more explicit it doubtless would be subject to the criticism of alleging evidentiary facts. A case directly in point is People v. K. and H. Bridge Co. 287 Ill. 246, where this court stated at pages 250-1: “There was a legal objection to the amount of the tax, which the appellant had a right to prove, and the court erred in striking it from the files. That objection was that the property was arbitrarily, knowingly and fraudulently assessed at its full market or cash value while all other property was arbitrarily and knowingly assessed at about forty per cent of such value in accordance with an established rule and long custom for assessing property. * * * It is sufficient for an objector to show such willful and intentional violation of the constitutional provision, and where an assessment shows a very great disparity and discrimination, which could not reasonably have arisen from an error of judgment, the courts will give relief. * * * The objection showed such alleged disparity and discrimination between the full cash value of appellant’s property and the valuation of forty per cent of such cash value of all other property, and the appellant had a right to prove the objection.” I say the same in this case — the appellant had a right to prove the objection.