Murray v. City of Virginia
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of Cass county; the Hon. J. W. Bearick, Judge, presiding. This was an application by the collector for judgment against certain lots in Petefish’s and in Beers’ additions to the city of Virginia, for the taxes due thereon for the year 1877. All the taxes were tendered except the city taxes, the payment of which was resisted on the ground that said lots were not within the corporate limits of the city, and, consequently, not subject to taxation by…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court of Cass county; the Hon. J. W. Bearick, Judge, presiding. This was an application by the collector for judgment against certain lots in Petefish’s and in Beers’ additions to the city of Virginia, for the taxes due thereon for the year 1877. All the taxes were tendered except the city taxes, the payment of which was resisted on the ground that said lots were not within the corporate limits of the city, and, consequently, not subject to taxation by the city. The court found the lands in Pete-fish’s addition subject to the tax, and rendered judgment for the same, but…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sheldon
The question here presented is, whether Petefish’s addition and Beers’ addition to the city of Virginia are a -part of the city of Virginia and within the corporate limits thereof, so that the lots in said additions are the subject of taxation by the city.
The following provisions appear in the charter of 1857 of the town of Virginia. Private Laws 1857, p. 1443:
“ Sec. 2. The boundaries of said town of Virginia .shall include one square mile of territory, the center of which shall be a point in the center of Morgan street equi-distant between Beardstown and Springfield streets, as said streets…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People ex rel. Rice v. McKinnieIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- People ex rel. Moyer v. HausenIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
- People Ex Rel. Seiler v. CallowayIllinois Supreme Court · 1931