Ferguson v. Bd. of Review of Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1903
• Citation: 93 N.W. 352,119 Iowa 338
• Parties: FERGUSON ET AL. v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF INCORPORATED TOWN OF ROLFE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

119 Iowa 338

93 N.W. 352

FERGUSON ET AL.

v.BOARD OF REVIEW OF INCORPORATED TOWN OF ROLFE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 31, 1903.

Appeal from district court, Pocahontas county; F. H. Helsell, Judge.

Plaintiffs were notified by the defendant, the board of review for the adjustment of the assessment of taxes, that the assessment of plaintiffs' property had been raised; and upon the appearance of plaintiffs, and a hearing with reference to the matter, the board raised plaintiffs' assessment. Plaintiffs caused a writ of certiorari to issue from the district court for the purpose of determining the validity of the action of the board of review, and, on return being made of the writ, a trial was had, as the result of which the writ of certiorari was discharged, and the petition therefor was dismissed, and judgment was entered against plaintiffs for costs, from which they appeal. Affirmed.Prouty, Coyle & Prouty, for appellants.

Healy Bros. & Kelleher and A. N. Botsford, for appellee.

McCLAIN, J.

By Code, § 4154, the writ of certiorari may be granted where an inferior board, exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded its proper jurisdiction, or is otherwise acting illegally, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. It is contended for appellants that the defendant board of review acted illegally in raising plaintiffs' assessment, without any evidence proper to be considered in so doing. But it is a sufficient answer to their position that certiorari is only allowed where “there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.” It is true that at common law the allegation of want of jurisdiction in an inferior tribunal is generally sufficient ground to authorize an investigation by certiorari to determine that question; and this is, no doubt, still true, under the statute But it is plain that in the case before us no want of jurisdiction on the part of the board of review was made to appear. The proceedings were in accordance with the provisions of Code, § 1372, and the board had jurisdiction to act. Plaintiffs were before it, submitting their objections to the increasing of their assessment, and the subject-matter was proper for the board's determination. It is true that, in many cases from other states called to our attention, the action of a taxing board has been reviewed in a certiorari proceeding. Some of these cases were decided under statutes authorizing such an action. Others were decided in states where the determination of the taxing tribunal is final, and there was therefore no other adequate and speedy remedy. But in this state a remedy by appeal is specially provided for (Code, § 1373), and counsel for plaintiffs do not contend that it would not have been practicable for them to secure in this manner all the relief to which they were entitled. Indeed, they concede in argument that an appeal was taken by plaintiffs, and voluntarily dismissed, before this certiorari proceeding was instituted. The question which we have before us, then, is whether, under our statutory provisions with reference to the nature of the writ of certiorari, and the method provided for correcting errors in the action of the board of review by appeal, a taxpayer may, instead of prosecuting his appeal, bring the...