Clayton v. City of Chicago

Citations

• 44 Ill. 280

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxes—concerning sufficiency of specification in aparticula/r ordinance— of the object of the tax imposed. Under section 4, chapter 9, of the revised charter of 1863, of the city of Chicago, which requires the object of the tax to be specified, an ordinance was passed imposing a tax of one mill on the dollar for permanent improvements. Held, that this was a sufficient specification of the purpose of the tax.</p> <p>2. Same—mere informality in procedure—will not vitiate tax levied. An ordinance levying taxes, and passed before the tax lists were completed by the clerk and signed by the assessors, does not vitiate the tax thereby imposed, every thing having been done that was necessary to authorize the levy. It is such an informality in the procedure as the charter expressly provides shall not vitiate the tax.</p> <p>3. Notice by tax collectob—in what proceeding its sufficiency may he questioned. The charter of the city of Chicago requires that the collector, when he receives a warrant for the collection of taxes, shall give notice, that, after the expiration of sixty days, he will levy on the personal property of all persons who have failed to pay. On an application for judgment against the land assessed, whether the collector did or did not give notice that he would levy on personal property in default of payment, is wholly immaterial; so, in such proceeding, the sufficiency of the collector’s notice in that regard cannot be questioned.</p> <p>4. Fobmeb decisioh. The case of Scammon v. The City of Chicago, ante, p. 269, is decisive of the other questions presented in this case.</p>