Frost v. Bd. of Review of Oskaloosa

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMcCLAIN
Citation86 N.W. 213,114 Iowa 103
Decision Date18 May 1901
PartiesFROST v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF OSKALOOSA.

114 Iowa 103
86 N.W. 213

FROST
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW OF OSKALOOSA.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 18, 1901.


Appeal from district court, Mahaska county; A. R. Dewey, Judge.

The appellant filed in the district court a notice to the mayor of Oskaloosa, presiding officer of the board of review of that city, advising him that said Frost appealed to the district court “from the action of said board with reference to the complaint of said C. J. Frost with regard to the assessment of him, and the adding of his property to the assessment rolls by the said board at its session ending in June, 1899.” The record presented by appellant shows further the entry by the judge from which it appears that the cause came on for trial, both parties appearing by counsel, and it was stipulated as to the time when the board of review finally adjourned, and that each party then rested the case without introducing any evidence, whereupon appellee moved the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmance of the assessment made by the board of review against the said Frost, which motion was sustained, and appellant excepted, whereupon the court taxed the costs to him, and rendered judgment against him therefor, from which judgment he appeals. A certificate of the judge as to the evidence shows no other facts in addition to those appearing from the final judgment, except that appellant asked that appellee be held to have the burden and the opening and closing of the case, and the court held that appellant had the opening, to which he excepted. Affirmed.

[86 N.W. 214]

Liston McMillen, for appellant.

Byron W. Preston, for appellee.


McCLAIN, J.

As is usual in cases where an attempt is made to appeal to the district court from the decisions or findings of some administrative board, in accordance with statutory provisions regulating such appeal, we are met at the outset with a question as to what is the proper practice in such a case, and whether the party making complaint in the district court of the action of the board or tribunal has taken the proper steps to have his complaint considered. It is unfortunate that there are no general provisions in the statute for the regulation of these appeals, as, in the disconnected sections in which appeals of this kind are authorized, no direction is given as to the method of procedure. In Code, § 225, relating to the general jurisdiction of the district court, it is provided that it has jurisdiction “in all appeals and writs of error taken in civil or criminal actions and special proceedings authorized to be taken from all inferior courts, tribunals, boards, or officers, under any provisions of the law of this state”; and in section 3660 that “in appeals from justice courts or other inferior tribunals, in civil cases, the appellant shall cause the case to be docketed by noon of the second day of the term to which the same is returnable,” and then it is provided how appellee may have the judgment affirmed or the case set down for trial in the event that the appellant has failed to have the case docketed as required. It is evident that an affirmative duty is imposed on appellant, to get a case before the court, and that something more than a mere service of the notice is contemplated. Scott v. Lasell, 71 Iowa, 180, 32 N. W. 322. It is further said in this section that “the provisions of this Code as to appeals from justice courts shall be applicable, so far as may be, to other appeals contemplated in this section.” This last provision seems to have been inserted for the first time in the Code of 1897, and perhaps may indicate some rules of procedure not recognized by cases decided before that time relating to the proper method of procedure in these cases. If we look to the provisions of the Code relating to appeals from justice courts, we find, in general, that the appeal is perfected by giving a bond (Code, § 4552), and that notice is required, which may be given orally on the day when judgment is entered, or afterwards by written notice served on the appellee or his agent (Code, §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Galusha v. Wendt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 12, 1901
    ...by simple demand of a lump sum, be converted into a money obligation. A court cannot be made an assessment board. Frost v. Board (Iowa) 86 N. W. 213. The present Code requires the taxpayer to assist the assessor by specifically listing the various items of property required to be entered fo......
  • Morril v. Bentley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1911
    ...acted upon sufficient evidence, his valuation must be sustained. Bank v. City, 136 Iowa, 208, 112 N. W. 829;Frost v. Board, 114 Iowa, 103, 86 N. W. 213;Gibson v. Cooley, 129 Iowa, 529, 105 N. W. 1011. As to the common stock, we think the trial court warranted in finding its value to be $5 p......
  • Yeoman Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Assessment, No. 45023.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 22, 1940
    ...v. Heath, 146 Iowa 347, 125 N.W. 259; City Council of Marion v. C. R. & M. Ry. Co., supra. The case of Frost v. Board of Review, 114 Iowa 103, 86 N.W. 213, is referred to in the German American Sav. Bank case, supra, and it is said [118 Iowa 84, 91 N.W. 830]: “* * * there was an entire ......
  • Cowles Communications, Inc. v. Board of Review of Polk County, No. 59900
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 17, 1978
    ...it a transcript of the proceedings before the Board. It maintains the following cases support this contention: Frost v. Board of Review, 114 Iowa 103, 86 N.W. 213; City of Marion v. Investment Co., 122 Iowa 629, 98 N.W. 488; and Peterson v. Board of Review, 138 Iowa 717, 116 N.W. 818. Cowle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Galusha v. Wendt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 12, 1901
    ...by simple demand of a lump sum, be converted into a money obligation. A court cannot be made an assessment board. Frost v. Board (Iowa) 86 N. W. 213. The present Code requires the taxpayer to assist the assessor by specifically listing the various items of property required to be entered fo......
  • Morril v. Bentley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1911
    ...acted upon sufficient evidence, his valuation must be sustained. Bank v. City, 136 Iowa, 208, 112 N. W. 829;Frost v. Board, 114 Iowa, 103, 86 N. W. 213;Gibson v. Cooley, 129 Iowa, 529, 105 N. W. 1011. As to the common stock, we think the trial court warranted in finding its value to be $5 p......
  • Yeoman Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Assessment, No. 45023.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 22, 1940
    ...v. Heath, 146 Iowa 347, 125 N.W. 259; City Council of Marion v. C. R. & M. Ry. Co., supra. The case of Frost v. Board of Review, 114 Iowa 103, 86 N.W. 213, is referred to in the German American Sav. Bank case, supra, and it is said [118 Iowa 84, 91 N.W. 830]: “* * * there was an entire ......
  • Cowles Communications, Inc. v. Board of Review of Polk County, No. 59900
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 17, 1978
    ...it a transcript of the proceedings before the Board. It maintains the following cases support this contention: Frost v. Board of Review, 114 Iowa 103, 86 N.W. 213; City of Marion v. Investment Co., 122 Iowa 629, 98 N.W. 488; and Peterson v. Board of Review, 138 Iowa 717, 116 N.W. 818. Cowle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT