Butz v. Kerr

Citations

• 123 Ill. 659

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxation—rule of uniformity—road tax—excluding town authorities from levying within am incorporated city or village. There is nothing in the present constitution, or in that of 1848, which requires the territorial jurisdiction of a town in respect to taxation for road purposes to be uniform or co-extensive with the territorial limits of the town, and the legislature may limit the authority of the highway commissioners to levy taxes for road purposes to the territory outside of incorporated cities and villages, and prohibit them from the levy of such taxes within the corporate limits of such cities and villages.</p> <p>2. So where a city charter gives the municipal authorities the exclusive control of all the streets and highways within its limits, with full power to levy taxes to keep them in order, and provides that the town in which the city is situated, or any of the town officers, shall not levy any road tax within the city limits, while such provisions remain unrepealed the commissioners of highways of the town will have no right to levy and collect a road tax within such city, and if it is attempted to be levied, its collection may be enjoined.</p> <p>3. Repeal of statutes—by implication. A statute will never be held to be repealed by implication if it can be avoided on any reasonable hypothesis. A statute will not be repealed by implication unless the subsequent act is so inconsistent and repugnant to its provisions that the two can not stand together.</p> <p>4. A subsequent general law will not, by implication, operate as a repeal of a special law on the same subject, though inconsistent with it. And a repealing clause of a general statute will not repeal a special one on the same subject, unless a clear intention is manifested that such repealing clause shall embrace special as well as general laws.</p>