Lambert v. Mills County
| Citation | 12 N.W. 715,58 Iowa 666 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. MILLS COUNTY ET AL |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1882 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Mills Circuit Court.
THE plaintiff presented to the board of supervisors of defendant a "petition for the correction, remission and revision of the levy and assessment of a certain special ditch tax purporting to have been made against him," on real estate described in the petition, on the grounds the tax was illegal, wrongful, erroneous, and without authority of law. The board refused to remit or modify the assessment, and the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, which appeal was dismissed on the ground that none was allowed by law. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
AFFIRMED.
Kelley & Bros., for appellant.
Watkins & Williams and Hall & Stone, for appellees.
What was to be accomplished by the construction of the ditch, the record fails to disclose with certainty, but we infer from the arguments of counsel it was located and constructed under the provisions of § § 1207 to 1216, inclusive, of Miller's Code. It does not appear the plaintiff was a petitioner for the ditch, or that the same was located on or through his land. The board of supervisors was authorized to make an equitable apportionment of the cost of the ditch and assess the same on the lands along the line, or in the vicinity, of the ditch. Miller's Code, § 1214. The illegal or erroneous act complained of is based, as we understand, on the fact the board determined the plaintiff's land was in the vicinity of the ditch, and therefore should bear an equitable portion of the cost of construction. No complaint is made of the amount of the assessment, if the land could be assessed at all. The question is, then, narrowed down to this: The board determined the land of the plaintiff was in the vicinity of the ditch, and he claims it was not, as contemplated by the statute. If it was not, then of course it should not have been taxed.
Vicinity does not mean adjoining to or abutting on, but near, close by, or neighboring country. The subject-matter to which the occasion for the use of the word requires it should be applied, should, to some extent at least, control its meaning as to nearness to or distance from. It is evident when the board was vested with the power to determine what land in the vicinity or neighborhood of the ditch should be assessed, with a portion of the cost of...
To continue reading
Request your trial