Crawford v. Polk County

• Decision Date: 11 October 1900
• Citation: 83 N.W. 825,112 Iowa 118
• Parties: C. M. AND C. R. CRAWFORD, Appellants, v. POLK COUNTY AND H. C. MURPHY, Treasurer
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

83 N.W. 825

112 Iowa 118

C. M. AND C. R. CRAWFORD, Appellants, v. POLK COUNTY AND H. C. MURPHY, Treasurer

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 11, 1900

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. T. F. STEVENSON, Judge.

THE petition alleged that plaintiffs were owners of three 80-acre tracts of land, situated within the corporate limits of Des Moines, and properly assessable at $ 23,600; that the acting assessor, with the purpose of discriminating against nonresidents, arbitrarily assessed said land at the valuation of $ 37,800; that they had no notice of this in time to appear before the board of equalization; that they tendered to the county treasurer payment of all taxes, based on a fair assessment, and are ready to pay any amount fixed by the court; that the assessment was fraudulent, and in contravention of the act of congress admitting Iowa as a state, providing, among other things, "that in no case shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents" (Act March 3, 1845, section 6, subd. 5); and they prayed the assessment be declared void, and the amount of tax payable on a fair assessment be determined, to the end that they may discharge their just portion of the burden of taxation and no more. A general demurrer was sustained, and as plaintiffs did not plead over, the petition was dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

St John & Stevenson for appellants.

Thos A. Cheshire for appellees.

LADD J. GRANGER, C. J., not sitting.

OPINION

LADD, J.

The statute has provided a tribunal for the correction of assessments, regardless of the circumstances out of which the errors arise, and for this purpose it is quite immaterial whether these result from mistake in computation or of judgment or of some irregularity or from willful wrong. This clearly appears from its wording: "Any person who may feel himself aggrieved at anything in the assessment of his property, may appear before said board of equalization in person, or by agent, at the time and place mentioned in the preceding section, and have the same corrected in such manner as to said board may seem just and equitable, and the assessors shall meet with said board and correct the assessment books as they may direct. Appeals may be taken from all boards of equalization to the circuit court of the county where the assessment is made." Section 821, Code 1873. That it is broad enough to permit of the correction of excessive assessments fraudulently made cannot be doubted and full protection is afforded through the right of appeal to the courts. It was declared in the early cases of Macklot v. City of Davenport, 17 Iowa 379, "that, where a statute upon a particular subject has provided a tribunal for the determination of questions connected with that subject, the jurisdiction thus conferred is exclusive, unless otherwise expressed or clearly manifested; and that generally, where a statute in relation to revenue provides a tribunal for the correction of the errors of the officers by a proceeding in the nature of an appeal to it, such quasi appellate jurisdiction is exclusive." And such has been the tenor of all the subsequent decisions of this court. Robbins v. Magoun, 101 Iowa 580, 70 N.W. 700; Wilson v. Cass County, 69 Iowa 147, 28 N.W. 483; Harris v. Fremont County, 63 Iowa 639, 19 N.W. 826; Polk County v. Sherman, 99 Iowa 60, 68 N.W. 562; Nugent v. Bates, 51 Iowa 77, 50 N.W. 76; Smith v. City of Marshalltown, 86 Iowa 516, 53 N.W. 286. See cases collected in note to Holland v. Mayor, etc., 69 Am. Dec. 195. See Crawford County v. Laub, 110 Iowa 355, 81 N.W. 590. In none of these cases, however, was the element of fraud involved. An error in overvaluation is always subject to correction, and, if fraudulent, differs from others only with respect to the motive of the assessor. The same remedy is available, and there appears no good reason for not following it. But it is said fraud vitiates everything, and for this reason resort may be had directly to the courts. That may be true as between private parties, but the state and its agencies ought not to be deprived of the revenues, nor the citizen relieved of his just portion of the burden of taxation because of the evil motive of the...