*1 error in the versible instructions taken as a whole. To a reversal verdict of a has heard justify jury all the the error relied must either evidence, deny defendant his substantial or his materially rights prejudice case before the jury. Jersky, 261; Peo ple O’Brien, is not the case here. Such Our comment in the case is Jersky here. equally applicable “On the record before short us, nothing miscarriage justice could other produce any any judgment, lighter than this defendant has punishment secured.” already We find the conclusion that the defendant inescapable of murder guilty and that he received a fair free trial, The prejudicial error. of the trial court is accordingly affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
(No. 33634 . ex rel. Callahan, T. County Collector, The James vs. Appellee, Gulf, Ohio Mobile Com pany, Appellant.
Opinion January 19, Rehearing denied March 19, filed 195 6 *2 C.J., dissenting. Hershey, Gillespie,
Gillespie, Gillespie, & F. Burke Louis Hugh and all of of Ogden, Springfield, Dobbs, (J. N. J. and of of coun- W. H. Mobile, Alabama, Alton, Thomas, for sel,) appellant. of Attorney, Edwardsville, P. Schuman, State’s
Fred of Edwardsville, of for (Kenneth F. counsel,) Kelly, appellee. Daily
Mr. delivered the of the court: opinion Justice Mobile Ohio Appellant, and Railroad Com- Gulf, objections filed pany, in the of court Madison county County to the county collector’s order application of sale of real of estate, delinquent for taxes nonpayment for the year A motion by the collector to strike objections was sustained entered and, thereafter, judgment against appellant the amount of $18,578.38, tax under paid protest embraced objections. The revenue being involved, has a direct perfected appeal to review both the order its striking objections the subsequent judgment.
The parties as indeed agree, they must, the Revenue Act requires all valuations which tax rates de- fair cash value. Rev. full, (Ill. and extended to be
veloped ob By stricken pars. 501, 502.) chap. Stat. was assessed at whose State jections, other that its level with own railroads, alleged prop along fair has been assessed at cash but that erty taxed as when excessively illegally had and inten county sessed property than fair value. The undervalued at less cash tionally that the fraud was about further brought assessor assessed local when the county knowingly prop not to exceed 10.2 cent of the a valuation erty “upon fair board review value;” county cash when certified the tax lists and closed and books with level assessments; and when out revising general which section of the Rev Revenue, the Department Act with the duty enue charges lowering raising value of certified by so any county total *3 will be assessed fair cash that value, property fixed an and intentionally equalization rate, or at “a which would a debased percent multiplier, produce and assessed valuation of not to exceed of equalized 60% fair cash value of assessed locally property.” Ap objected taxes on rates than against pellant paying higher have been if would assessed developed locally property had been at one hundred fair cash value in the percent full, formula which rates were by Translated computed. it is into contention that figures, because appellant’s locally fraudulently valued property intentionally than at less value, increase in resulting its tax rates caused bill of to be excessive $45,017.81 $18,578.38. is raised as question
Some to whether who admits its own property correctly has assessed, pursued remedy. We proper find, however, this has observed on several occasions that since valua- tions must be the result of honest judgment not of be impeached that an assessment mere it follows will, and when rate, a at too high made fraudulently both when Gas Light rate. made at a (People’s too low Bur Chicago, Stuckart, and Coke v. 286 Ill. 174; Co. Cole, Ill. 591, 594.) & Railroad Co. Quincy lington it has held line cases, of Further, long be may properly of discrimination in assessments taxes. delinquent for raised on application Milwaukee, ex Paul Ross St. (See: People Chicago, rel. and cases there Co. Ill. Pacific is that Here essence of cited.) appellant’s there a fraudulent discrimination from resulting had the undervaluation effect of of the Revenue equal denying appellant protection and of Act, to taxation both con subjecting lacking stitutional and conclude that a statutory uniformity. We has been proper remedy pursued.
Under section IX of article the Illinois constitu tion, have no courts, absence power review determine the fixed pur of taxation poses administrative officers to whom such function has been ex rel. Tedrick delegated. v. Allied Oil & Corporation, Ill. Keokuk Hamil 219; ton & People, Spencer Gardner People, It is when the 510.) valuation has been fraudulently made that it is subject judicial review. (Kinderman v. Gas Harding, Ill. 237; People’s Light and Coke v. Stuckart, In the latter regard, we have held that error in the exercise of honest judgment will not invalidate the fraud tax, that is never presumed, and that mere overvaluation not sufficient to establish *4 fraud. ex (People Miller rel. v. Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railroad Co. Keokuk and Hamilton Ill. 399; 300 Bridge People, Co. v. On the other 514.) hand, it is held that overvaluation be so under excessive, some as circumstances, to the conclusion justify it
70 to be ex that it was known made and was not honestly intervene In to prevent such cases courts will cessive. Turk, ex Rhodes fraud. rel. v. (People constructive 391 Lieb, Hotel Where 602.) Co. Ill. 424; Ill. v. Pacific 83 an assessment is to be sought impeached either fraud by burden is on to actual show objector clear that an assessment and sufficient or to show evidence, of fraud is SO' as to evidence excessive to amount grossly in and an indication that the authorities, making taxing same, intentionally discriminated against wilfully ex Tedrick Allied the said Oil objector. rel. ex Johnson Robi Corporation, rel. 219; People Ill. 388 cases son, Ill. Although foregoing speak 406 in terms we are of fraudulent overvaluation of property, of the that the same justice require opinion logic an assessment is established where principles apply sought to be on the of fraudulent undervalua impeached grounds tion. Cf. Coulter & Nashville v. Louisville Iron Sundry ed. U.S. Lake 615; L. Township Wakefield, U.S. ed. 1154; L. City Sioux Co. Dakota County, 260 U.S. edL. first The itself presents whether, light enunciated cited principles cases, appel lant’s either sufficiently actual or con charged structive fraud. Insofar as actual fraud is concerned it is elementary that it devolves upon party claiming state the facts relied as it. Gas constituting (Sterling Higby, Co. v. District 557; Sanitary v. Gifford, Anderson, Anderson v. In the Ill. 400.) objections before us the various taken steps authorities are set forth and, general terms, have fraudulent, wrongful illegal. Bearing mind, first, that mere overvaluation undervaluation is not sufficient to establish fraud and, second, that the presump tion obtains that the transactions assailed *5 it is motives, apparent honest faith and with done good facts any by unaccompanied that such general charges, motives, actions or dishonest fraudulent or showing and are of the conclusions pleader mere expletives not admitted not As the such, charges good pleading. strike and the trial court the motion to prop collector’s by erly sufficiently held that the failed to charge ex rel. Green, actual fraud. Owens Ill. 380; District Sanitary Parker Board Appeals, Ill. 559; Blair, Gifford, Fogg U.S. ed.L. next the of whether Considering appellant’s final is sufficient make construc- pleading showing tive find it that assessed locally we generally alleged at assessed and not property valued, equalized exceeding of its fair cash sixty percent full, value, whereas appellant’s was assessed and at the fair cash equalized property value thereof. means of a By drawn schedule, by appellant into it is incorporated objections, specifically alleged that the value of all locally assessed prop- amounted erty but $827,453,141 year that all of such had been on property the Madison placed tax County rolls that year an amount totalling The same $496,471,885. schedule bears the allegation that the full, fair cash value of appellant’s property It $2,302,180. contention appellant’s million dollar discrepancy of locálly assessed reckoning prop- erty values is so gross as to' demonstrate that the taxing authorities could not have been honest in their valuation, thus entitling to relief from a constructive fraud. We are of the that opinion, however, the rule of law con- tended for cannot be to the case made applied out by bare of value allegations relied upon.
It is that “locally assessed was not at assessed its full, fair cash value.” alone this Standing is but a conclusion of the pleader. We have the further schedule, means of however, by appellant’s allegation, fair cash in the objections, For all $827,452,131. appears arrived has been by appellant figure alleged the basis of values on mechanical process recomputing valuation the bare conclusion that equalized but sixty arrived at authorities represented *6 cent of the fair cash value of locally per In such a the absence of facts a basis, property. showing increase in the values fixed au- mechanical There thorities is itself a conclusion of the merely pleader. no facts for ac- are which either afford a basis assessed at that local cepting allegation other than its or which would value, permit court a to make the values appellant comparison seeks to draw.
It is our that the do conclusion, therefore, not state sufficient facts to make out a case constructive within the of the authorities relied meaning and we hold court was county justi- fied in the motion them. sustaining to strike Accordingly, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Hershey,
Chief dissenting: Justice To a deny on the merits because of a hearing pleading defect seems to me violative of both the letter and spirit of modern statutes and rules procedural As a practice. result of both enactment and legislative judicial prior opin- this court is ion, committed to the position pleadings to be construed liberally with a view of substan- doing tial justice between the parties.
Section of the Revenue Act of a tax- requires to “the payer specify cause of objection” and particular directs the court to “determine the matter a summary * * * without manner, and pleadings, pronounce judg- determine be.” To of the case ment as the right stand from a objection “pleading” a tax sufficiency it informs adequately one must consider whether point, relied the defense counsel of upon. court and opposing Quincy Burlington Chicago, Shortall, People there how could In the instant case I do not understand to the nature of de have been the doubt as slightest more fense. If the doubtless objection explicit be subject evidentiary would to the criticism alleging facts.
A case v. K. H. directly point at where this court stated pages 250-1: “There a tax, amount of the objection legal which the had and the right prove, erred in it from the files. That objection striking was arbitrarily, knowingly assessed at its full market cash value while all other property was arbitrarily about forty cent of such value in accordance with estab * ** lished rule and custom for long assessing property. *7 It is sufficient for an such objector to show willful and intentional violation of the constitutional provision, where assessment shows very great disparity dis crimination, which could not have reasonably arisen from * * * an error of judgment, courts will give relief. The objection showed such alleged and discrim disparity ination between the full cash value of appellant’s property valuation of forty cent of such cash value of all other and the property, had a right prove objection.” say I the same in this case—the appellant had a right prove objection.