Evans v. City of Council Bluffs

• Decision Date: 05 December 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 584,65 Iowa 238
• Parties: EVANS ET AL. v. THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

21 N.W. 584

65 Iowa 238

EVANS ET AL. v. THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 5, 1884

Appeal from Pottawattamie Circuit Court.

THIS is a petition to sever certain territory from the city of Council Bluffs, upon the ground that the land composing said territory is wholly agricultural and farming lands, and so used and occupied, and that the same has never been used for any municipal purpose whatever, and has received no benefits or advantages by being within the corporate limits, and is not likely ever to be used for municipal purposes. Upon a hearing, an order was made that the territory in question be severed. Defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

G. A Holmes, for appellants.

Sapp & Pusey, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, CH. J.

The evidence shows that the territory sought to be severed is used exclusively for agricultural and horticultural purposes. It has never been laid off in lots, and is remote from any part of the city which is so laid off. It is conceded that the land embraced in the petition is not liable for municipal taxes. There is no evidence that the growth of the city will in the near future render it necessary that the lands in question should be platted as part of the city. All the evidence upon that point appears to us to be mere conjecture. Two railroads are built and in operation through the land and it is insisted that the severance should not be made because, the city will thereby be deprived of the tax upon the two railroads in the territory in question. We think this consideration should not enter into the case. Cities ought not to be permitted to retain lands within their limits which are not needed for city purposes, and which are not benefited by being within the corporation, and against the will of the owners, for the mere purpose of deriving revenue therefrom. It is true, certain streets and roads have been opened and improved by the city, which are a benefit to the residents of the territory in question, but these are not more of a benefit to the petitioners than to other owners of farm lands adjacent to the city.

The court appointed commissioners, as provided by law, to adjust the terms on which the lands should be severed from the city. By agreement of the parties, the commissioners reported the assessed value of the entire city, and the assessed value of the portion sought to be severed, leaving the court to fix the terms of severance....