District Tp. Of Sheridan v. Frahm. Cnty. Treasurer

• Decision Date: 10 April 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 721,102 Iowa 5
• Parties: DISTRICT TP. OF SHERIDAN v. FRAHM. COUNTY TREASURER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 Iowa 5

70 N.W. 721

DISTRICT TP. OF SHERIDAN

v.FRAHM. COUNTY TREASURER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 10, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; C. M. Waterman, Judge.

Plaintiff, a school district known as the “District Township of Sheridan,” asks a writ of mandamus commanding the defendant treasurer to pay to plaintiff one-half of the tax collected by defendant on property assessed under chapter 62, Acts of the 25th General Assembly for the year 1894, in said township of Sheridan. The defendant demurred to the petition upon the ground that the plaintiff is not a municipality within the meaning of said chapter. The demurrer was overruled, and, defendant electing to stand thereon, judgment was rendered against him, from which he appeals. Reversed.W. M. Chamberlin, for appellant.

Davison & Lane, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. Chapter 62, Acts 25th Gen. Assem., provides for assessing, levying, and collecting an annual tax of $600 “against each person carrying on or conducting a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and also against the real property, and the owner thereof, in which or upon which said place is located.” Section 14 of said chapter is as follows: “The revenue derived from the tax provided for in this act (six hundred dollars per annum) for each place where intoxicating liquors are sold, shall be paid into the county treasury, one-half to go into the general county fund, and the remainder to be paid over to the municipality in which the business taxed is conducted.” The question presented on this appeal is whether the school district is a municipality within the meaning of said section. Appellant's contention is that the word “municipality” applies only to incorporated cities and towns, and several definitions are quoted in support of this contention. Appellee contends that this court has, in a number of cases cited, held that a school district, such as plaintiff, is a municipality, and that the terms “municipality” and “municipal corporation” are synonymous. It is true that these terms had been used in some instances as synonymous, but not when the question was so directly presented as now. It is the legislative intention in the use of this word for which we are now to inquire, rather than the technical or general sense in which it is used; yet these are proper to be considered in arriving at the legislative intention. It is a fact that places for the sale of intoxicating liquors are very generally within...