Griswold Land & Credit Co. of Manson v. County of Calhoun
| Decision Date | 11 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 36049 |
| Parties | GRISWOLD LAND & CREDIT COMPANY, Appellants, v. COUNTY OF CALHOUN et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Calhoun District Court.--M. E. HUTCHISON, Judge.
APPEAL from the ruling of the court below upon a demurrer to plaintiff's petition. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
E. C Stevenson, for appellants.
Marion R. McCaulley and John W. Jacobs, for appellees.
This is an action in mandamus, brought jointly by the Griswold Land & Credit Company of Manson, Iowa, and its stockholders, against the board of supervisors and county treasurer, respectively, of Calhoun County, to compel a refund of certain taxes alleged to have been erroneously and illegally exacted of appellants by the county treasurer. A demurrer to the petition was sustained; and, plaintiffs electing to stand thereon and refusing to plead further, the petition was dismissed, and judgment entered against them for costs. The action is bottomed upon Section 1417 of the Code of 1897, and it is alleged in the petition that the Griswold Land & Credit Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Iowa, engaged in the loan and investment business; that it does not receive deposits, and is not in any way engaged in the business of banking or of a trust company; that, for each of the years 1914 to 1920, both inclusive, it furnished to the assessor in the proper assessing district the names of the stockholders, the number of shares, and such other information as was essential for a proper listing and assessment of its property; that, under the statute, its shares of stock should have been assessed at their full value on the basis of moneys and credits; but that the assessor, in disregard of his duty, classified the loans and cash of the corporation as personal property, and not as moneys and credits; that it was assessed and classified along with banks and loan and trust companies, and assessed at the same rate as such companies are assessed; that, prior to the commencement of this action, appellants made demand of the board of supervisors for an order on the county treasurer, directing him to refund the taxes thus erroneously and illegally exacted; that said application was refused; and that the mistake in said assessment was not discovered by appellants until the taxes for the several years mentioned had been fully paid. They prayed that a writ of mandamus issue, to compel the board of supervisors to order the treasurer to refund said tax, and the treasurer to pay the same out of the proper funds of his office.
The grounds of the demurrer are that the taxes for the years 1915 to 1917, inclusive, were barred by the statute of limitations, and that the appellants had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by appeal from the board of review, and, therefore, that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.
It is the duty of the county auditor to Section 1360, Code of 1897.
It is the duty of the assessor to list every person in his assessing district and assess all of the property, personal and real, therein, not exempt from taxation or otherwise assessed. Section 1354, Code of 1897.
The assessor must complete the assessment by the first day of April, and on or before the first Monday of that month must appear before the local board of review with his assessment rolls, for correction or approval. Section 1365, Code of 1897.
The board of review in cities and towns is the city council. In case the assessed value of any specific property or the entire assessment of any person, partnership, or corporation is raised, or new property added by the board of review, notice shall be given thereof, and time allowed within which complaint may be made before that tribunal. Section 1372, Code of 1897.
Any person aggrieved by the action of the assessor in assessing his property may complain orally or in writing to the board of review, and if relief is not granted by such board, may appeal to the district court. Section 1373, Code of 1897.
The provisions herein referred to will be found in Chapters 342 and 343 of the Code of 1924.
Section 1417, so far as material to the matters involved in this controversy, is as follows:
"The board of supervisors shall direct the treasurer to refund to the taxpayer any tax or portion thereof found to have been erroneously or illegally exacted or paid, with all interest and costs actually paid thereon."
It thus appears that the authority of the board of review is plenary to correct errors in the classification and assessment of property and to increase or diminish the valuation fixed by the assessor. A tribunal having been created by the legislature and invested with power to hear certain complaints and grievances in the listing and assessment of property, its jurisdiction in all such matters is exclusive of all other remedies allowed by law, except as hereafter shown. Macklot v. City of Davenport, 17 Iowa 379; Lauman v. Des Moines County, 29 Iowa 310; Buell v. Schaale, 39 Iowa 293; Isbell v. Crawford County, 40 Iowa 102; Meyer v. Dubuque County, 43 Iowa 592; Richards v. Wapello County, 48 Iowa 507; Nugent v. Bates, 51 Iowa 77, 50 N.W. 76; Harris v. Fremont County, 63 Iowa 639, 19 N.W. 826; Wilson & Co. v. Cass County, 69 Iowa 147, 28 N.W. 483; Eyerly v. Jasper County, 72 Iowa 149, 33 N.W. 609; Missouri Valley & B. R. & B. Co. v. Harrison County, 74 Iowa 283, 37 N.W. 372; Van Wagenen v. Supervisors of Lyon County, 74 Iowa 716, 39 N.W. 105; Crawford v. Polk County, 112 Iowa 118, 83 N.W. 825; Wahkonsa Inv. Co. v. City of Fort Dodge, 125 Iowa 148, 100 N.W. 517.
The failure of a person aggrieved by the assessment of his property to appear before the board of review and make complaint waives his right to subsequently complain of any irregularity in the listing and assessment thereof. Dickey v. County of Polk, 58 Iowa 287, 12 N.W. 290; Richards v. Wapello County, supra; Harris v. Fremont County, supra; Van Wagenen v. Supervisors of Lyon County, supra. The attempt of the county treasurer to collect a void tax may, however, be enjoined by a court of equity. Barber v. Farr, 54 Iowa 57, 6 N.W. 134; Union Pet. Co. v. Indian Pet. Co., 192 Iowa 1373, 186 N.W. 439.
The jurisdiction of the board of supervisors to order a refund of taxes paid is limited to such as have been erroneously or illegally exacted by the county treasurer. It is conceded by counsel for appellees that mandamus to compel the board of supervisors to order a refund is the proper remedy, under Section 1417. In view of the conclusion reached, we shall, for the purposes of this case, assume that the shares of stock of the Griswold Land & Credit Company should have been assessed as moneys and credits, and not as personalty.
The real nub of the controversy is the right of appellants, under the facts admitted by the demurrer, to relief under Section 1417. The question, therefore, is: What is meant by taxes found to have been erroneously or illegally exacted or paid, within the terms of this statute? Was the remedy of appellants, of appearing before the board of review with their grievances, and, upon failure to obtain relief, of appealing to the district court, exclusive of all others, or may they maintain the present action, notwithstanding that the irregularity complained of could have been remedied by that tribunal? The word "erroneously" has no doubt been somewhat loosely used by this court, particularly in some of its early decisions.
Let us now briefly review the decisions of this court relied upon by appellants. The action in Lauman v. Des Moines County, supra, was in mandamus, to compel the county treasurer to refund certain taxes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Griswold Land & Credit Co. of Manson v. Calhoun Cnty., 36049.
-
Brewer v. Stark
... ... for the partition of an 80- acre tract of land ... in Linn County, and involves the ... ...