Curtis v. Hoyt
| Decision Date | 07 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 33807.,33807. |
| Citation | 192 Iowa 1334,186 N.W. 460 |
| Parties | CURTIS v. HOYT, STATE TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Van Buren County; D. M. Anderson, Judge.
Action to cancel and set aside a collateral inheritance tax assessed against the property of plaintiff. Petition was dismissed at plaintiff's costs, and judgment entered accordingly. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Newbold & Newbold, of Keosauqua, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., and B. J. Powers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and G. R. Buckles, Co. Atty., of Keosauqua, for appellees.
DE GRAFF, J.
[1][2] A commission issued directed to the collateral inheritance tax appraisers of Van Buren county, Iowa, authorizing and directing them to appraise the property of R. B. Curtis, who died intestate in said county December 21, 1917. A return of appraisement was made May 25, 1918, showing the value of the real estate to be $20,750, and moneys and credits in the sum of $17,460. This action was instituted by plaintiff, who is the sister of the decedent, and is predicated on the theory (1) that the tax was assessed illegally for the reason that no legal or proper notice was given of the proposed assessment, and (2) because the property did not belong to R. B. Curtis at the time of his death, but was in fact the property of the plaintiff, Helen M. Curtis.
It is the contention of the defendant that the real and personal property in question was transferred, assigned, and conveyed by the decedent to the plaintiff prior to the death of the owner and in contemplation of death, and to avoid the payment of the collateral inheritance tax. The trial court so found, and dismissed the petition upon its merits at plaintiff's costs.
If it may be said that the defendant failed to give the plaintiff due, legal, and timely notice of the proposed assessment, then the court was in error in dismissing the petition, and it will be unnecessary for this court to pass upon the merits of the case, reserving to the defendant the right to reappraise and give notice to the parties interested as provided by statute.
It appears from the record that after the commission issued to the collateral inheritance tax appraisers of Van Buren county the appraisers, on May 2, 1918, ordered that said appraisment be made at the clerk's office in Keosauqua, Iowa, on the 25th day of May, 1918, at 2 o'clock p. m., and that “statutory notice thereof be given.” An application addressed to the judge of the district court was filed on the same date, in which it was stated that--
“We deem it impracticable to serve the notice upon interested parties as provided for by statute, and we ask that such other notice be prescribed as may be deemed proper and advisable.”
In compliance therewith an order was entered by the court granting the prayer of the application, and it is recited therein “that notice of the appraisement be given by publication.” In conformity to this order entered May 2, 1918, the appraisers gave notice by publication in one issue of the Keosauqua Republican (May 9, 1918), a weekly newspaper published in said county, and statutory proof thereof was filed. This published notice was addressed to the proper parties, and apprised them that the property charged, or sought to be charged, with the payment of collateral inheritance tax would come on for hearing May 25, 1918, at 2 o'clock at the clerk's office in Keosauqua, Van Buren county, Iowa, and that the said appraisers would proceed to appraise the estate of the decedent, R. B. Curtis, at said time and place.
The validity of the notice is dependent upon the provisions of the statute in relation thereto. Section 1481a6, Code Supp. 1913, provides that it shall be the duty of collateral tax appraisers, upon receiving a commission to make an assessment, to forthwith give notice to the treasurer of state and other interested persons of the time and place at which they will appraise the property, which time shall not be less than 10 days from the date of said notice. The notice shall be served in the same manner as is prescribed for the commencement of civil actions, and, if not practicable to serve the notice provided for by statute, the appraisers shall apply to the court or judge thereof in vacation for an order as to such notice.
In the instant case it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff, the only party interested in the ownership of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial