Warren v. Cook

Citations

• 116 Ill. 199
• 5 N.E. 538

Syllabus

<p>1. Appearance—what constitutes, so as to give jurisdiction of the person. The filing of objections against an application by the collector, in the county court, for judgment against a lot for taxes due thereon, by an attorney having a general authority to appear for that purpose, must be regarded as the entry of the owner’s appearance, and as giving that court jurisdiction of his person.</p> <p>2. Tax title—conclusiveness of judgment for taxes—as to what matters. A judgment of the county court against land for taxes, where there is jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter, is of like binding effect upon the parties as any other judgment at law, and however erroneous it may be, until reversed it is as binding as if free from error.</p> <p>3. If a party appears in the county court and files an objection to the rendition of judgment against his land for taxes claimed to be due thereon, a judgment against his land for such taxes, in the absence of fraud, is conclusive, not only as to the objections interposed, but also as to all defences that might have been made.</p> <p>4. Same—owner chargeable with notice—as to extension of back taxes. In such case the owner will be chargeable with notice of whatever the record shows, and on bill to set aside the sale of his land and enjoin the taking out of a tax deed, he will not be heard to claim he did not know that back taxes had been extended against his property.</p> <p>5. Ohanoeby—relief against judgment—negligencein defending at law. A court of equity will not grant a party relief against a judgment at law which is the result of his own negligence in not making a proper defence. This rule applies to judgments against lands for taxes where the party appears and resists judgment.</p>