Cooper v. Barton
| Decision Date | 24 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | 39691 |
| Citation | 226 N.W. 70,208 Iowa 447 |
| Parties | W. E. COOPER, Executor, Appellee, v. A. W. BARTON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Shelby District Court.--EARL PETERS, Judge.
Action in equity, in which plaintiff, as executor, seeks to recover from the defendants an alleged overpayment of $ 158.57 paid to them by the county auditor of Shelby County, Iowa, which sum was paid by said auditor as a refund of an overassessment for benefits in Drainage District No. 11 in Shelby County Iowa. The opinion states the essential facts. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against each of the defendants in the sum of $ 43.45, with 6 per cent interest and costs. The defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
White & White, for appellants.
Bennett Cullison, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The facts are stipulated in this case, and it is conceded that the plaintiff-appellee, W. E. Cooper, is the executor of the estate of Phebe Barton, who held a life estate in the land involved herein, to wit: a 65-acre tract which was included in Drainage District No. 11 in Shelby County, Iowa. The defendant-appellants are the owners in common of the remainder in said land. Phebe Barton, the life tenant, died December 25, 1923. The drainage district in question was established April 6, 1920. The board of supervisors of Shelby County, Iowa, acting as a drainage board, made assessments for benefits against the land included in said district. Said assessments were payable in ten equal installments, the first payment being due on the land involved herein on March 31 1922, in the principal sum of $ 256.29, with interest, $ 102.30, and the second installment being due March 31, 1923, in the principal sum of $ 256.90, and interest in the sum of $ 138.73. Both the life tenant and the remaindermen failed to pay said installments of principal and interest, resulting in a tax sale of said land on December 3, 1923. The proceeds of said sale paid the installments and interest then due and unpaid. On September 5, 1925, the drainage board, by resolution, ordered a refund to be made "to persons entitled thereto" by reason of excessive assessments for benefits in said district, and further provided that there should be refunded 13 per cent on the amount assessed against each tract and parcel of land. The amount ordered refunded to the persons entitled thereto as to the land involved herein was $ 333.89, and that sum was actually paid by the county auditor on January 27, 1925, by drainage warrants issued to the defendants (remaindermen), each sharing equally.
On December 8, 1926, no redemption having been made, one L. J. Smith, purchaser at the tax sale, received a tax deed to said land.
What is the rule governing the instant facts? This was a permanent public improvement. It increased the value of the remainder and the general rule is that a special assessment for such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial