Skip to main content

Andrews v. People

Citations

  • 75 Ill. 605

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxes—law making report of collector prima facie evidence of taxes due, not unconstitutional. A statute (act of 1873,) making the collector’s return, in writing, to the sheriff or county treasurer, of the taxes levied by a town or city, due and unpaid, under oath, “prima facie evidence that all the requirements of the law have been complied with in the assessing and levying the taxes therein returned as unpaid, are due and unpaid,” is not liable to the constitutional objection that it gives the collector judicial power to determine the question of delinquency, as his report is only made prima facie evidence of that fact.</p> <p>2. Same—impeaching collector’s return. Where the statute required the collector, in case of loss of the records, to make his return of delinquent taxes for the year or years before such loss “ from the best information that he can obtain,” it was held that the collector was made the sole judge of the sources and sufficiency of the information; and that, on an application for judgment, his report could not be impeached, by showing that he did not, in fact, make his report from the best information he could obtain, and that he did not know what lie returned to be true. Proof, however, that his return was not true would be proper.</p> <p>3. Same—pendency of prior application for judgment a bar to second one. The pendency of an application for judgment against land for the taxes of a prior year is a good defense against the rendition of judgment for the same taxes on a second application. The statute prescribing that the causes of objection to the rendering of judgment shall be specified in writing, embraces every defense, and the objector is, therefore, not bound to plead the pendency of the former suit in abatement.</p> <p>4. Statute — when it repeals prior laws by implication. A statute which covers all the grounds of prior ones on the same subject, and revises the whole law on the given subject, necessarily works a repeal of all prior c

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.