Davis v. City of Clinton
| Decision Date | 05 April 1881 |
| Citation | 8 N.W. 423,55 Iowa 549 |
| Parties | DAVIS AND OTHERS v. CITY OF CLINTON AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Clinton circuit court.
The plaintiffs are the owners of certain real estate in the city of Clinton. The same was assessed, for the purpose of taxation, at the value of $10,000. The board of equalization increased such valuation to $12,000. Afterwards the plaintiffs appeared before the board and asked it be reduced to $7,000. This was refused, and the value finally fixed by the board at $11,000. Thereupon the plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, where a judgment was rendered fixing the valuation of said property at $9,000, and the defendants appeal.Albert R. McCoy, for appellants.
Aylett R. Cotton, for appellees.
The appeal was taken in April, 1879, and in August thereafter there was filed therein by the plaintiff a petition setting forth at length the proceedings before the board of equalization, and alleging the valuation of the real estate as fixed by the board was “unequal, unjust, and excessive, to the extent of $4,000.” A judgment was asked reducing the valuation fixed by the board to $7,000, “and for such other and further judgment as may be consistent with the case made.”
The allegations of the petition were denied in an answer filed by the defendants. Evidence was introduced by both parties. The defendants asked for a jury, which was denied. The appellee insists this action of the court was right, and also that there cannot be a trial anew in this court, although all the evidence has been properly preserved and is before us, because this is not an action at law or in equity, but is a special proceeding. Conceding this to be a special proceeding, the question remains, how it shall be tried. No special provision is made for the trial of such proceedings. It is, however, certain they must be tried in the inferior courts, and on appeal in the same manner as an ordinary proceeding or action at law, or as an equitable action simply, because there are but two modes of trial known to our system of jurisprudence. In Sisters of Visitation v. Class, 45 Iowa, 145, it was said the “mode of trial will be determined by assigning the proceeding to whichever class (law or equity) it appropriately belongs.” But when the powers and duty of the court are ascertained, in cases involving questions like that before us, the mode of trial may be readily determined. It is not claimed that the value of the property fixed by the assessor for the purposes of taxation is invalid, or because an unconstitutional mode was adopted, instead of having such value ascertained by a jury. We shall, therefore, assume the valuation made by the assessor was a valid exercise of the taxing power as provided by statute, although the plaintiff, by a sale of the property taxed, might be deprived thereof, without having had a day in court or trial by jury.
Starting, then, with the assumption that the assessment made by the assessor did not impair any vested or constitutional right, we find the statute creates a board of equalization, whose duty it is to equalize the assessments between the several tax payers. Code, § 829. Any person feeling aggrieved by the assessment made by the assessor may appear before said board and have the same corrected, “as to said board may seem just and equitable.” From the decision of the board an appeal may be taken to the circuit court. Code, § 831. The hearing before the board cannot be said to be the trial of an action at law. No issue is joined. Nor can it be said there are parties to the proceeding who can be regarded as adversaries. Appeal of the Des Moines Water Co. 48 Iowa, 324. The board, in our opinion, are simply assessing officers, whose duty it is to do what the assessor, it is alleged, failed to do; that is, make an assessment which is just and equitable. The board constitutes a part of the machinery provided by the state for the purpose of adjusting the burdens of taxation upon an equitable basis. The plaintiffs, claiming the board had not performed properly the duty incumbent on it, appealed to the circuit court, as they had the right to do. In the absence of a statute declaring otherwise, the plaintiffs had no more right to a jury trial in said court th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sonleitner v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
...30 N.E.2d 34, 36; Mix v. People, 86 Ill. 312, 313; Johnston v. State, 212 Ind. 375, 8 N.E.2d 590, 10 N.E.2d 40, 41; Davis v. City of Clinton, 55 Iowa 549, 8 N.W. 423, 424; Thomas Forman Co. v. Owsley County Board of Supervisors, 267 Ky. 224, 101 S.W.2d 939, 941; City of Covington v. Shinkle......