Brown v. Town of Grand Junction

• Decision Date: 13 October 1888
• Citation: 75 Iowa 488,39 N.W. 718
• Parties: BROWN v. TOWN OF GRAND JUNCTION.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 Iowa 488

39 N.W. 718

BROWN

v.TOWN OF GRAND JUNCTION.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 13, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Greene county; J. H. MACOMBER, Judge.

The plaintiff was assessed for taxation for the year 1887, by the town council of Grand Junction, upon $10,000 worth of merchandise. He appealed to the district court, where a trial was had, and a decree was entered for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.Howard & Rose and W W Turner, for appellant.

Church & Lovejoy and Cole, McVey & Clark, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

For several years prior to 1886 the plaintiff was extensively engaged in buying, packing, preserving, and shipping eggs. His place of business was at Grand Junction, in Greene county, where he had buildings, egg-cases, tubs, or vats in which to pickle eggs, and other fixtures and appliances adapted to the business. On the 6th day of December, 1886, he sold out his entire business, including all of the property used in prosecuting said business, to certain parties in the city of New York, so that on the 1st day of January, 1887, he had no merchandise nor personal property at Grand Junction. The sale was made in good faith, and in a short time thereafter the plaintiff removed to Colorado. On the 4th day of April, 1887, the town council of Grand Junction, sitting as a board of equalization of assessments for taxation of property for the year 1887, assessed the plaintiff with $10,000 upon merchandise. The fact is the plaintiff did not have any merchandise which was taxable, in Grand Junction, for the year 1887. The plaintiff, being in Colorado, returned to Grand Junction, and appeared before said board on the 15th day of April, 1887, and demanded that said assessment be canceled, because he did not have nor own any merchandise in the town of Grand Junction, nor in this state, on or after January 1, 1887. The board refused to cancel the assessment. An appeal was taken to the district court, where elaborate pleadings were filed by the parties, and a full trial was had, in which it was clearly shown by the evidence that the assessment upon merchandise was wrongful and erroneous. But after the evidence was all introduced, and one argument had been made in the case, the defendant, in the view that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was properly assessable on $10,000 of moneys and credits for the year 1887, by leave of the court, amended its answer to conform to the evidence, and demanded that the court change the...