Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ill. 474

Butler v. Dunham

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1861

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1861-04-15

This bill alleges, that each of the complainants are owners of real estate and tax-payers in the limits of the town of St. Charles, and that the total amount of property assessed to them is $100,000, and is about one-fourth the taxable property of said township. That the joint property of complainants in said township, will be liable to an assessment for taxes for the year 1859, for about the said sum of $100,000, for state, county, and township taxes.

Relies on Prettyman v. Supervisors of Tazewell County · Robertson v. City of Rockford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1914

4 state decisions

30186118701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Breese, J.

¶1All the questions presented by this record have been decided by this court.

¶2In the case of Prettyman v. The Supervisors of Tazewell County, 19 Ill. 406, which was an application similar to this, for the exercise of the restraining power of the court, we held that the legislature had the constitutional right to authorize counties, towns and cities to aid in the construction of railroads, by lending their credit, in the form of bonds, or by taking stock in the roads. That a complaint of fraud in the election, or the question of taking stock or issuing bonds, must be made in apt time, and before any rights have accrued under the election. To the same effect, is the case of Robertson v. The City of Rockford et al., 21 Ill. 451; Johnson v. The County of Stark, 24 id. 75, and Perkins v. Lewis et al., id. 208.

¶3We see nothing in this case to take it out of the ruling in these cases. The court should have sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, as it is without merits. The decree of the court below is reversed, and the bill dismissed.

¶4Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.

/27/ill/474 · .json · Public domain