IN FAVOR OF SURETY OR GUARANTOR.
1. Where a party pays a debt which he is legally bound to pay for
another, as surety or guarantor, he will, in equity, be entitled to be sub-
rogated to all the securities held for its payment, and this, though he may
have been the trustee empowered to sell by a deed of trust. Durst. v.
Bates et al. 493.
ON REDEMPTION FROM PRIOR LIEN.
2. A person occupying the position of junior mortgagee, or his assignee,
may redeem from a deed of trust which is a prior lien, and thereby
be subrogated to any and all securities held by or for the benefit of the
holder of the prior lien. Ibid. 493.
3. In favor of third person advancing the purchase money. A person
advancing money to a purchaser of land, which is used in completing his
payment of the purchase money, who at the time takes a deed of trust on
the premises to secure himself, there being no privity or arrangement
between him and the vendor that he shall succeed to the lien of the
vendor, he will not be entitled in equity to be subrogated to the rights of
the vendor, so as to hold the entire premises against a second purchaser
from the first of a part of the land, who was in possession under his con-
tract at and before the execution of the trust deed. Small et al. v.
Stagg, 39.
SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED TITLE.
INURES TO BENEFIT OF MORTGAGEE.
TITLE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED BY ATTORNEY.
Can not be asserted against a defective title acquired by his client under his
advice. See ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, 1.
WHETHER THE RELATION OF SURETY EXISTS.
1. Or that of junior mortgagee. See MORTGAGES, 8.
SURETIES ON OFFICIAL BONDS.
2. Of their liability. See OFFICIAL BONDS.
3. Of the implied authority to fill the blanks-and how manifested. See
BONDS, 1 to 5.
4. Of notice to the obligee as to surely signing upon condition. Same
title, 6 to 9.
NEED NOT BE ACTUALLY SWAMP OR OVERFLOWED.
1. The act of Congress granting swamp and overflowed lands to the
State of Illinois, required the Secretary of the Interior should transmit
a list of such lands in this State to the Governor, and under that act the
lands described in such list became vested in the State, whether they
were swamp or overflowed lands or not. Bristol et al. v. County of Car-
roll, 84.
2. The list and plats of swamp lands transmitted to the Governor,
under the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, by the Secretary of
the Interior, and a duly certified copy of the list of such lands, certified
by the Auditor to the county clerk, of the swamp lands in a county,
under the acts of the legislature granting the same to the several counties
in which they are situated, will be sufficient evidence to show title in
the county to the lands embraced in such lists and lying in such county.
Ibid. 84.
EXEMPTION IN CHARTER OF CORPORATION.
1. Is a contract, binding on the State. Where the property of a corpora-
tion is exempted from taxation by its charter, the exemption amounts to
a legislative contract, which is binding on the State, and such property
can not afterwards be subjected to taxation. The People ex rel. McCrea v.
The Soldiers' Home et al. 561
RIGHTS OF PART OWNERS OF A TRACT OF LAND.
2. As to right to pay only upon what a party owns-requisites of petition
for relief. Where a party who has been assessed upon a certain portion
of a tract of land, according to his claim of ownership, seeks relief
against a forfeiture of his land to the State for a refusal to pay taxes
upon the entire tract, he should show by his petition the distinct part of
the tract of which he claims to be the owner, so that it may appear upon
what portions the respective owners are to be liable. Madison County v.
Smith, 328.
SETTING ASIDE FORFEITURE.
3. Power of county board. Where land has become forfeited to the
State for non-payment of taxes, a county board has no power to set the
forfeiture aside. Ibid. 328.
4. By whom. A county board has no power to make an abatement of
taxes legally assessed, extended and placed in due course of collection.
If a party is aggrieved by an over assessment, he should apply to the
board of review to have it corrected, or to the July session of the board,
under the 97th section of the Revenue law. Ibid. 328.
INTEREST ON UNPAID TAXES.
5. Under amendatory act of 1879. Section 177 of the Revenue law, as
amended by the act of 1879, which took effect July 1, 1879, providing
that all unpaid taxes on real estate from and after the first day of May
shall bear interest at the rate of one per cent a month until paid or for-
feited, has no application to taxes assessed and levied before the amend-
atory act took effect. The People ex rel. Mc Crea v. Thatcher, 109.
TAXATION IN THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS.
6. Of the rate per cent allowed. Section 1 of article 3 of the special
charter, under which the city of East St. Louis is organized, provides
that "the city council shall have power to levy and collect an annual tax,
not exceeding one per centum per annum, upon all property, real and
personal, within the jurisdiction of the city, upon the assessed value
thereof." This limitation is upon the grant of the power to levy and
collect taxes generally, and its effect is, in no case shall the entire tax
of the city, in the aggregate, to be levied annually, exceed the rate men-
tioned. Weber v. Traubel et al. 427.
7. Section 22 of article 7 of the same charter authorizes the levy and
collection of a tax, not exceeding three mills on the dollar, upon each
annual assessment of the taxable property of the city, for the purpose of
paying interest upon registered bonds, scrip and certificates of indebted-
ness. There is no repugnancy between this section and section 1 of
article 3, in respect to the limit of the rate which may be levied for all
purposes. The rate allowed to be levied under section 22 of article 7 is
not in addition to the rate limited in section 1 of article 3. but is a limit-
ation upon the amount of taxation allowed for the specific purpose named
in that section, which amount, when levied, is to be deducted from the
aggregate amount which may be raised under the limitation of one per
cent for every purpose. Ibid. 427.
8. So, also, in respect to the operation of section 1 of chapter 81 of
the Revised Statutes of 1874, entitled "Libraries," which authorizes
cities to levy and collect a tax annually, not exceeding one mill on the
dollar upon each annual assessment, to be known as the "library fund,"
-this statute was not intended to interfere with clauses in the special
charters of cities limiting the rate per cent of taxation, but the grant
of power to tax for library purposes must be held to be subordinate to
such limitations in special charters. Ibid. 427.
9. The act in regard to the assessment and collection of municipal
taxes, approved May 23, 1877, and in force July 1, 1877, it has been held,
has reference only to the mode or manner of assessing taxes,-the pur-
pose being to require uniformity in that regard, and has no relation
whatever to the rate of taxation, so it does not in any way aid the view
TAXATION. TAXATION IN THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS. Continued.
that the city of East St. Louis can exceed the rate of one per cent limited in its charter, in taxation for any purpose whatever. Weber v. Traubel et al. 427.
10. The "act in regard to the assessment, levy and collection of the taxes of incorporated cities in this State for years prior to the year 1877," approved May 5, 1877, does not in anywise relate to or attempt to regulate the rate per cent of taxation which may be levied by cities. Ibid. 427.
RECOVERY OF TAXES ON FORFEITED LANDS.
11. Of the declaration in suit for that purpose as to the time of ownership. See PLEADING, 2.
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF COMMISSIONERS OF HIGHWAYS.
1. Liability of the town therefor. A town is not liable to an action for the unlawful conduct of its commissioners of highways in diverting from its natural course a stream of water in the construction or improvement of a public highway, whereby the water is caused to flow upon the land of another. If the commissioners, in doing a lawful act, seize private property without lawful right, or injure the same unlawfully, the tort is that of the man or men who do the unlawful act, and is not that of such a corporation. Cooney et al. v. Town of Hartland, 516.
WHETHER THE ACTION WILL LIE.
1. As to commingling of property. It is not essential to the maintenance of an action of trover that the property in respect of which a recovery is sought shall be capable of identification, and distinguished or separated from all other property of like character. Nor does it matter whether the plaintiff held the property alleged to have been converted, in severalty, or in common with another, his right of recovery is the same in either case, the measure of his recovery being controlled, of course, by the extent of his interest in the property. German National Bank v. Meadowcroft, 124.
2. As to grain stored in public warehouse, and mingled with other grain. So, where grain is consigned to a public warehouse, and is there stored in bins, mingled with other grain of like character and grade, belonging to different persons, so that its identity is lost, upon the refusal of the warehouseman to deliver, upon the presentation of the proper warehouse receipts, the quantity of grain, and of the grade, called for by such receipts, the holder of the receipts may maintain trover for the recovery of damages according to the extent of his interest in the property thus converted. Ibid. 124.
TROVER. WHETHER THE ACTION WILL LIE.
3. And this right of action would exist whether the plaintiff be
regarded as the owner in severalty of the number of bushels of grain
represented by his warehouse receipts, or whether it is to be considered
that he holds a certain proportionate interest in all the grain in store in
common with other holders of receipts. German National Bank v.
Meadowcroft, 124.
AGAINST WHOM THE ACTION WILL LIE.
4. Transfer of public warehouse. If the ownership and possession of
a public warehouse or elevator shall be transferred to another by the
person to whom grain has been delivered for storage therein, the person
so succeeding to the possession of the warehouse and of the grain in
store therein will be held to the same liability to the holders of ware-
house receipts, and subject to the same remedies as the former proprietor
who received the grain and issued the receipts. Ibid. 124.
5. In this case the owner of a public warehouse, in which was stored
large quantities of grain owned by different persons, conveyed the ware-
house property in trust for the security of a creditor. The creditor took
possession of the warehouse, and of the grain stored therein, placing the
property in charge of another person as his agent. The holder of a
warehouse receipt for a quantity of grain delivered to the former owner
of the warehouse, presented the same to the person thus in charge, and
demanded the grain represented thereby, which was refused: Held, an
action of trover would lie against the creditor so in possession, at the
suit of the holder of the warehouse receipt, for the conversion of the
grain called for by the receipt. Ibid. 124.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A TRUST.
1. What so regarded. The grantee, in a deed which was never deliv-
ered, conveyed the property, without consideration, to the widow of the
first grantor. This second grantee thereupon executed a deed of trust to
another to secure the payment of borrowed money, giving notice, in
writing, to the lender of the money, before consummating the transac-
tion, that the property embraced in the deed, in fact, belonged to the
minor son and heir at law of her husband, the original grantor in the
deed which was never delivered. Upon bill filed by the heir at law to
establish a trust in respect of the property, it was considered that such
notice given to the grantee in the deed of trust might be regarded as a
sufficient acknowledgment of the trust in favor of the heir at law. Union
Mut. Life Ins. Co. et al. v. Campbell, 267.
2. Barred by release. Where a husband, entrusted with his wife's
money to invest in real estate in her name, took the title in his own
name, paying with her money, and after their separation a settlement
|