Dunleith & Dubuque Bridge Co. v. Dubuque County

• Decision Date: 05 April 1881
• Citation: 8 N.W. 443,55 Iowa 558
• Parties: DUNLIETH & DUBUQUE BRIDGE COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF DUBUQUE
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

8 N.W. 443

55 Iowa 558

DUNLIETH & DUBUQUE BRIDGE COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF DUBUQUE

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 5, 1881

Appeal from Dubuque Circuit Court.

THIS case was brought to the Circuit Court by an appeal of plaintiff from the action of the board of equalization of taxes of Julien township, Dubuque county, in refusing to reduce the valuation of the railroad bridge across the Mississippi river, owned by plaintiff, and in increasing such valuation. Upon a trial in the Circuit Court the assessment and valuation of the bridge were reduced. Defendant appeals. Other facts in the case appear in the opinion.

AFFIRMED.

W. J Cantillon and D. S. Wilson, for appellant.

George Crane and Shiras, Van Duzee & Henderson, for appellee.

OPINION

BECK, J.

I.

The assessor of Julien township, wherein plaintiff's bridge is situated, assessed it at a valuation of $ 160,000. The description of the property as assessed is as follows "The west part main bridge from center of main channel of river, road-bed, bridges and right of way from west bank of river to the Illinois Central depot, over and across the following lots," describing them. The board of equalization of Julien township increased the valuation and assessment to $ 200,000. From this action of the board plaintiff prosecuted an appeal to the Circuit Court, claiming that $ 100,000 "would be a fair valuation according to the rates at which other property in the township is assessed." The Circuit Court reduced the valuation to $ 133,333.

II. At the trial in the Circuit Court defendant demanded a jury which was refused, and the cause was tried to the court. This ruling is the ground of defendant's first objection to the judgment of the court below. The precise question here presented, namely, whether in proceedings of this character trial by jury is authorized by the constitution and laws of the State, was determined at the present term of this court. See Davis et al. v. City of Clinton et al., ante, 549. We held that in proceedings for the correction of assessments of property for taxation the parties are not entitled to a jury trial. Further consideration of this question is not demanded in this case. Following Davis et al. v. City of Clinton, we hold that the Circuit Court did not err in refusing to submit the cause to a jury.

III. It was shown to the court by an agreed statement of facts that the main bridge which is the subject of the assessment in question consists of several spans and a draw, and is 1,760 feet in length. From the abutment upon the Illinois shore to the middle of the pivot pier which supports the draw is a distance of 430 feet. The pivot pier is in the middle of the main channel followed by vessels in the navigation of the river. The main body of water of the river flows in the channel between the abutments of the main bridge, and is equal thereto in breadth. The approach to the main bridge from the Iowa shore consists of embankments and a bridge of ninety feet wide across a slough in which there is always flowing water. The length and character of this approach as shown by the agreed statement of facts need not be more particularly described. In making the assessment in question the bridge was valued to the middle of the pivot pier, which is, as we have seen, only 430 feet from the Illinois shore. The approach, consisting of the bridge across the slough, the embankment, etc., was assessed and valued as a part of the bridge, or rather the bridge and the approach were assessed together. The agreed statement of facts sets out the amount and value of the capital stock of the plaintiff, the bridge company, the amount of its bonded indebtedness, and the amount and value of its contingent fund and other assets. These matters need not be more particularly referred to, as, in the view we take of the case, they are unimportant. The assessment of all other property in Julien township is upon a basis of thirty-three and one-third per centum of its cash value. In addition to the facts agreed upon by the parties, the court found the following facts:

"2. That the original cost of construction of the entire bridge property from the Illinois Central depot to the Illinois shore, and the right of way, being all the property covered by the assessment in question, and the four hundred and thirty feet remaining of the main bridge to the Illinois shore, was $ 714,000, of which sum the east eight hundred and eighty feet of the main bridge cost $ 361,000, and all the remainder of said property $ 353,000, and that the cost of said property if constructed on or about January, A. D. 1879, would have been from $ 500,000 to $ 550,000, the ratio of cost of the different portions of the bridge remaining the same as originally.

"3. That the valuation is fixed by the board of equalization of the property assessed, to-wit: From the Illinois Central depot to the middle of the draw or pivot pier, was not excessive, but was a fair valuation of said property upon the conceded basis of assessment in Julien township, and that said assessment should not be changed unless part of said property lies in the State of Illinois, and is, consequently, not legally assessable in Dubuque county.

"4. That the value of that part of the main bridge extending from the middle of the draw or pivot pier westerly four hundred and fifty feet, to the center of the main bridge, is substantially one-third part of the value of the entire property covered by the assessment in controversy, such ratio of value being based by the court upon a like ratio of cost of construction.

"5. The court holds as a matter of law that the evidence as to the cost of construction does not furnish a sufficient basis for the proper valuation of the property in question for purposes of assessment, but does furnish a proper basis for the ascertainment of the correct ratio of value of the different portions of said bridge property.

"6. Upon the facts admitted in said agreed statement, the court finds as a conclusion of law that the eastern boundary of the State of Iowa is at the center of the said main bridge, being the middle of the main stream or channel of the Mississippi river running thereunder, and distant eight hundred and eighty feet respectively from the Iowa and Illinois shores or banks.

"7. The court, therefore, further finds as a conclusion of law that the assessment in controversy, by including therein four hundred and fifty feet of the main bridge lying in Illinois, was to that extent illegal, and that said bridge company is entitled to have the assessment against it reduced one-third."

IV. The counsel for defendant insist that under the evidence and agreed statement of facts the bridge is shown to be of a value greatly in excess of the assessment made by the board of equalization. It will be observed that the Circuit Court found that the value fixed by the board of equalization upon the bridge was fair, and ought not to be reduced. This valuation was upon the bridge to the center of the pivot pier. But the court held that the bridge was not taxable by this State beyond the middle point of the bridge, and as the assessment covered the bridge for 450 feet beyond that point, the value of these 450 feet was added to the assessment, and in effect increased the value of the part of the bridge taxable in this State to the amount of the value of the 450 feet. The facts, in the view taken of the case by the court below, really presents the case of the taxation of property not within the State. But as the value of a part of the bridge without the State is in effect added to the value of the part within, for the reason that these portions are assessed as a unit, the case apparently presents a question of over valuation of the part of the bridge situated within the State.

But the truth is that the Circuit Court did not change the valuation fixed by the equalization board; it simply deducted from it the value of the part assessed which is without the State. In this way, while the valuation was not changed, the value of the bridge not taxable was deducted from the assessment. The assessment, therefore, of the bridge situated within the State remains under the decision of the Circuit Court the same as it was fixed by the board of equalization.

The case was tried in the Circuit Court upon written pleadings filed in that court. The petition of plaintiff, the bridge company, shows that the township assessor valued the property at $ 160,000; that the board of equalization increased the...