TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fox v. City of Rockford

Heman Fox v. The City of Rockford

Fox v. City of Rockford, 38 Ill. 451 (1865)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1865
Judges
Lawrence
Citations
38 Ill. 451
Syllabus
1. Capitation tax—what constitutes. An assessment of road labor is not a capitation tax; therefore the Legislature may authorize a city to make such an assessment upon all persons above the age of twenty-one years, without violating Section 1 of Art. 9 of the Constitution, which exempts persons over sixty years of age from the payment of a capitation tax. 2. Road labor—who subject thereto in the City of Rockford. The City of Rockford has power, under its charter, to assess road labor upon persons over sixty years of age, and to compel such labor if not commuted by payment of a tax. 3. Same—effect of the general law as a limitation upon the power of a city under special charter. The general law of the State authorizing counties and townships to impose the burden of road labor only on persons between twenty-one and fifty years of age, can not operate as a limitation upon an express power given to a city by special charter to impose such burden upon all persons over twenty-one years of age. 4. Where complete jurisdiction is given to a city in regard to improving streets, the laws of the State in regard to road labor in counties cease to be applicable as soon as the city has exercised its powers.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago county; the Hon. Benjamin R. Sheldon, Judge, presiding. This was a suit instituted in the Police Court of the City of Rockford, in the name of the city, against Heman Fox, to recover a penalty for failing to perform road labor, under an ordinance of said city. The cause was removed into the Circuit Court by appeal, where a trial was had, resulting in a judgment against the defendant for the sum of two dollars. He thereupon took this appeal. The only question arising upon the record is, whether the city has authority to assess road labor upon the defendant, he being over sixty years of age.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lawrence

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Lawrence delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only question presented by this record is, as to the power of the City of Rockford to assess road labor against persons over sixty years of age, and compel such persons to perform such labor, if not commuted by payment of a tax. The charter, in terms, gives the Common Council power “ to require every male inhabitant in said city, of twenty-one years of age, to labor on the streets.”

It is urged that the ordinance carrying into effect this clause of the charter is a violation of Sec. 1, Art. 9 of the Constitution, which exempts persons over sixty years of age from the payment of a capitation tax. In regard to this, it suffices to say, that this court has held in the Town of Pleasant v. Kost, 29 Ill. 490 , that the assessment of road labor is not a capitation tax.

It is also urged that it is inconsistent with the general law of the State, which authorizes County Commissioners’ Courts, and townships to impose the burden of road labor only on persons between twenty-one and fifty years of age.

The very object of granting city charters, is to give rights and powers not possessed by the municipalities of the State, created by general law, like counties and townships. The 103d section of the charter we construe to mean simply this: that in regard to all matters as to which the general laws of the State are applicable to the city of Rockford, the ordinances must be consistent with such laws. But where complete jurisdiction over a subject has been given to the city, as, for example, in regard to improving streets, the laws of the State in regard to road labor in counties, cease to be applicable as soon as the city has exercised its powers. The State has, in terms, given up its jurisdiction upon that subject to the city. It has expressly said the city may require road labor of all malé inhabitants over twenty-one years of age, and when the Legislature has said that, we do not feel at liberty to limit this grant of power so as to make it conform to the power over the same subject vested in counties aad townships. If there were a general law of the State, saying no citizen thereof over the age of fifty years, shall be compelled to perform road labor, the question presented would be very different. The 103d section of the charter would then probably apply. But we have no such law, and the fact that one class of municipalities is confined to certain ages in the imposition of road labor, should not render nugatory a special grant of a larger power to another municipality.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1874–1875: 11882–1883: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 11908–1909: 11914–1915: 11920–1921: 118742026peak 1874 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Rayburn1909 OK CR 67, 101 P. 1029
  2. State v. Sharp34 S.E. 264 (N.C. 1899)
  3. Salt Lake City v. Wilson148 P. 1104 (Utah 1915)
  4. Galloway v. Town of Tavares37 Fla. 58 (1896)
  5. On Yuen Hai Co. v. Ross14 F. 338 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1882)
  6. Propst v. County Court of Calhoun County106 S.E. 878 (W. Va. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Propst v. County Court of Calhoun County106 S.E. 878 (W. Va. 1921)
  2. Salt Lake City v. Wilson148 P. 1104 (Utah 1915)
  3. State v. Rayburn1909 OK CR 67, 101 P. 1029
  4. State v. Sharp34 S.E. 264 (N.C. 1899)
  5. Galloway v. Town of Tavares37 Fla. 58 (1896)
  6. On Yuen Hai Co. v. Ross14 F. 338 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Town of Pleasant v. Kost, 29 Ill. 490 (1863) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list