Mix v. People
Citations
- 116 Ill. 265
- 4 N.E. 783
- 1886 Ill. LEXIS 1086
Syllabus
<p>1. State’s attorney—suits in relation to the revenue—duty of that officer. The law makes it the duty of the State’s attorney to prosecute all actions and suits for the collection of the public revenue; and if he is absent, or unable to attend, or is interested in any cause or proceeding affecting the public interests, it is the duty of the court to appoint some competent attorney to prosecute or defend such cause or proceeding.</p> <p>2. Taxation—of the assessment—over-valuation—fraudulent assessment—remedy. If property is fraudulently assessed at a greater value, in proportion, than other like property in the same district, the owner should have the assessment reviewed by the tribunal appointed by law for that purpose. If he neglects to avail of his legal remedies, he can not contest the assessment and validity of the taxes on a bill by the State to enforce its lien against lands for such taxes.</p> <p>3. Saxe,—presumption in favor of legality of assessment. Where two or more lots are assessed jointly, and not separately, it will be presumed in favor of the acts of the assessor, in the absence of a contrary showing, that they were so situated that their value could not be ascertained separately, as, if one building had covered part of both lots.</p> <p>4. Same—refusal to assess property in owner’s name—remedy, if injury results. The refusal of the proper officers to assess lands and lots in the names of the several owners thereof, affords no ground of defence against proceedings to collect the taxes against such property. If the owner is injured by such refusal, the law will give him an adequate remedy against the office)'.</p> <p>5. Same—hy whom assessments must be made—and of an illegal reassessment, and a compromise based thereon. The law has designated a certain person to assess and fix a value upon property for taxation, and provided a township board of review, and no other person than the assessor can make such assessment. The board of supervisors have no
Judges: Tunnicliff
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- The People v. PopescueIllinois Supreme Court· 1931-06-18· cited 91×
- Ashton v. County of CookIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-09-21· cited 49×
- People Ex Rel. Nordlund v. LansIllinois Supreme Court· 1964-11-24· cited 43×
- Miller v. GordonIllinois Supreme Court· 1921-02-15· cited 23×
- Forman Realty Corp. v. BrenzaIllinois Supreme Court· 1957-05-23· cited 19×
- Hammond v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-11-01· cited 9×
- The People v. StrausIllinois Supreme Court· 1934-02-23· cited 7×
- Shappert Engineering Co. v. WeitemeyerIllinois Supreme Court· 1966-01-25· cited 5×
- Pfeiffer v. People ex rel. McCormickIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-12-22· cited 5×
- Jackson v. KraftIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-10-19· cited 4×
- Mix v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1887-11-11· cited 2×
- Jentink v. County of LakeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1927-06-02· cited 1×
- James T. Hair Co. v. DailyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1895-05-16
- Williamson v. LewisOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati· 1902-12-15
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.