Goodnow v. Litchfield
| Decision Date | 15 December 1885 |
| Citation | 67 Iowa 691,25 N.W. 882 |
| Parties | GOODNOW v. LITCHFIELD. (TWO CASES.) |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Webster district court.
These cases involve claims for reimbursement for taxes paid upon certain lands in Webster county. There were judgments for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.C. H. Gatch, for appellants, Grace H. and Edwin C. Litchfield.
George Crane, for appellee, Edward K. Goodnow.
1. The questions in these cases are substantially the same, and require but one opinion for their determination. They are in many respects similar to cases already determined by this court involving the right to recover for taxes paid on what is known as the Des Moines River lands. The whole controversy is just this: The lands above what is known as the “Raccoon Fork of the Des Moines River” were for a long time in controversy between what is known as the “River Grant” and the “Railroad Grant.” The claimants under the river grant finally recovered the land. Pending the various contests as to the title to the lands, the claimants under the railroad grant paid large sums of money in the discharge of taxes upon the lands. They claim that inasmuch as the claimants under the river grant succeeded in obtaining the lands, they ought to pay the taxes thereon; or, what is the same thing, they ought to reimburse the claimants under the railroad grant for what they have paid. This court has been of that opinion, and in the many cases which we have determined arising out of these matters we have determined that the taxes were not officiously paid by the plaintiffs or their assignors, but that the payments were made in good faith, and ought to be repaid with 6 per cent. per annum interest from the time of the respective payments. The payments in these cases are for taxes for the years 1861, 1862, and 1863. It is urged that the lands were not taxable for the year 1861. We had occasion to examine this question in the case of Goodnow v. Wells, ante, 864, decided at the present term, and we there held that the lands were taxable for that year, and with that decision we are content.
2. The defendant moved to require the plaintiff to make his petitions more specific, and the motions were overruled. The petitions show that the plaintiff sues as the assignee of the Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company. The assignment was in writing, and the same is exhibited with the petitions, and made part thereof. It plainly appears from the petition that the plaintiff sues as trustee of an express trust, and he was specially authorized to bring and maintain suits in his own name to recover the taxes in question. We think the petitions were sufficiently specific.
3. The defendants filed petitions for the removal of the causes to the circuit court of the United States. They alleged that they were citizens of the state of New York, and “that the plaintiff, Goodnow, is only a nominal party to the suits, and has no interest therein whatsoever, but is prosecuting the same for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of the Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company, which was at the commencement of the suits and still is a corporation under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Iowa, and having its principal place of business in said state of Iowa, which said railroad company directed the commencement of said suit, employed counsel to prosecute the same, and are directing and controlling the prosecution.” The petition for removal was disallowed, and the defendants excepted, and assign the ruling as error.
If the petition had been entertained by the court, and the removal ordered, it would have been upon the ground that the controversy was really between citizens of different states; that is, that it was an action between the Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company, of the state of Iowa, and of the defendant, a citizen of the state of New York. But the assignment to the plaintiff invested him with the title to the claim or cause of action, and authorized him to prosecute it by suit. We have recently decided that in such case a party has no right to a removal of the cause to the federal court. See Vimont v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 21 N. W. Rep. 9.
4. The venue of the actions was changed from the circuit court to the district court of Webster county on the application of the plaintiff. The defendants insist that the showing made for the change of venue was insufficient. The affidavit of the plaintiff in support of the motion to change the venue was as follows:
“STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF WEBSTER--IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SAID COUNTY.
I, Edward K. Goodnow, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that D. D. Miracle, judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial