delivered the opinion of the court:
On October 19, 1918, the city of Chicago filed in the circuit court of Cook county its petition praying the court to cause to be ascertained the compensation to be paid for a large number of lots in the city of Chicago described in' the petition, to be appropriated to school purposes. While the suit was pending an act was passed which took effect July 1, 1919, amending section 224 of the Revenue act so as to provide that any judgment or decree of court, in law or equity, setting aside any tax deed procured under the act or restoring the owner of the same to possession, should provide that the claimant should pay to the party holding such deed all taxes and legal costs, with interest, together with subsequent taxes and special assessments paid and the statutory fee and costs incurred and other specified items, and that no final judgment or decree of court in any case, either at law or in equity, or in proceedings under the Eminent Domain act involving the title to or interest in any land in which such party holding such tax deed should have an interest, or setting aside any tax deed procured under the act, should be entered until the claimant should make reimbursement to the party .holding such tax deed and payments as therein provided, in so far as it should appear that the holder of such deed or his assignors should have properly paid or be entitled to in procuring such deed. (Laws of 1919, p. 762.) Upon a trial a verdict was returned on February 17, 1920, finding the just compensation for certain lots to be $4800 and for certain other lots $1800. On March 15, 1920, judgment was entered on the verdict, and the petitioner was ordered to pay to the county treasurer the compensation allowed for the several parcels, as pro-, vided by statute, for the parties entitled thereto. On April 8, 1920, J. Kent Greene and Anna M. Cann filed their petitions for portions of the fund, Greene alleging that he was the owner of the lots for which compensation of $1800 had been allowed and Anna M. Cann alleging that she was the owner of the lots for which compensation of $4800 had been allowed, by deed from Oscar E. Leinen, one of the defendants in the condemnation suit. The city of Chicago answered the petitions, claiming portions of the fund by virtue of tax deeds under sales for installments of special assessments. It was stipulated that the property described in the two petitions had been sold at various times to the city of Chicago for delinquent special assessments, and that out of the funds deposited with the county treasurer there should be paid to the city $759.48, and Greene and Anna M. Cann (who had been married and whose name is now Anna M. Condon) agreed upon the portions chargeable to each. The petitions were also answered by Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos, claiming ownership of the fund by virtue of tax deeds. The petitions and answers were referred to a master in chancery, who took the evidence and reported that Greene and Anna M. Condon were the owners, respectively, of the lots claimed; that the tax deeds of Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos were void; that there was due to Greene $1631.22 after allowing $171.78 to the city of Chicago; that there was due to Anna M. Condon $4215.30 after allowing $587.70 to the city of Chicago; that Jacob Glos was entitled to $1008.18 for reimbursement on his tax claims and Lucy M. Glos was entitled to $579.48 on account of her tax claims. On a hearing on exceptions to the report the findings were approved, but one-half of the master’s fees of $357.50 was taxed to Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos, to be paid out of the fund, leaving the net amount payable to Jacob Glos $894.68 and to Lucy M. Glos $514.23. It was stipulated that the charges for the tax claims were to be made against Anna M. Condon, and she appealed from the order. Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos assigned cross-errors, each one specifying twenty-six particulars in which it was alleged that the court erred. They also appealed, and the appeals have been consolidated and all errors and cross-errors will be disposed of without particular reference to them.
The validity of the act is questioned on the same ground as the act of 1861, which required a deposit of the redemption money and interest as a condition precedent to questioning the validity of a tax deed, which was held unconstitutional. (Wilson v. McKenna,
The act amending section 224 was passed after the petition for condemnation had been filed and before the judgment, and it is clear from the provision that no final judgment or decree should be entered until reimbursement should be made to the party holding a tax deed, that it applied to pending causes and the reimbursement provided for could be made by a provision in the judgment or decree. It was in the nature of an act affecting the remedy, and might be applied to existing causes of action or pending suits provided it did not disturb or impair vested rights. While the general rule is that statutes are not to be given retrospective operation except where it is manifest that the legislature intended they should have such operation, it is not competent for the legislature to give such operation to an act where it will affect existing or vested rights. (Conway v. Cable,
Anna M. Condon moved the court to tax all the master’s fees against Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos and offered the affidavit of J. Kent Greene stating reasons in support of the motion, but the court excluded the affidavit and denied the motion. There was no reason for referring the petition to a master, but the record shows that the reference was made upon the motion of Greene as solicitor for Anna M. Condon and himself, and we cannot say from the record that anything which occurred before the master would require the taxing of all of his charges to Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos. As no allowance is to be made to Jacob Glos and Lucy M. Glos, the cost taxed to them will not be taken out of the fund but will be taxed against them personally.
The decree is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.