Hansen v. City of Missouri Valley

• Decision Date: 15 December 1916
• Docket Number: 30970
• Citation: 160 N.W. 340,178 Iowa 859
• Parties: JORGEN HANSEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF MISSOURI VALLEY, Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

160 N.W. 340

178 Iowa 859

JORGEN HANSEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF MISSOURI VALLEY, Appellees

No. 30970

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 15, 1916

Appeal from Harrison District Court.--E. B. WOODRUFF, Judge.

A RESOLUTION of necessity for curbing and paving the street in front of Jorgen Hansen's property, was adopted by the city council of Missouri Valley, January 6, 1914. In pursuance thereof and other proceedings, the regularity of which is not questioned, said street was curbed and paved later in the year. A plat and schedule of assessments proposed were filed, as required by Section 821 of the Code and notice given, as exacted by Section 823, Code, Supp 1913, whereupon the plaintiff, Hansen, filed the following objections:

"The undersigned owner of Lot 5 in Block 26, city of Missouri Valley, Iowa, hereby objects to the proposed assessment of $ 794.25 against said lot, as the amount of said proposed assessment exceeds 25 per cent of the value of said property as provided by Section 792-a of the Supplement to the Code of Iowa, and hereby requests your honorable body to reduce said assessment to such amount as is provided by law."

The objection was overruled by the city council; but, on appeal the district court reduced it to $ 700. Hansen appeals.

Affirmed.

J. S. Dewell, for appellant.

Burke & Tamisiea and C. W. Kellogg, for appellees.

LADD, J. EVANS, C. J., GAYNOR and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

LADD, J.

I.

Jorgen Hansen owned Lot 5 in Block 26 of Missouri Valley. The street in front of it was curbed and paved by the city. The sum of $ 794.25 was assessed against the lot as its apportionment of the expense according to benefits received. He objected on the ground that "the said proposed assessment exceeds 25 per cent of the value of said property, as provided by Section 792-a of the Code Supplement," and requested the city council "to reduce said assessment to such amount as is provided by law." The record discloses that the value of the lot, according to the last assessment roll, was $ 1,800. Some witnesses estimated that its actual value was more than $ 2,800. Others fixed it at that sum, and still others thought it much less. What a thing is worth is largely a matter of opinion, and cannot well be ascertained with absolute accuracy. Much depends on the viewpoint of each of the several witnesses. A careful examination of the evidence has convinced us that the lot with improvements was actually worth $ 2,800, as determined by the trial court.

II. Appellant contends that the value of the lot was fixed by the assessment roll, and that, though the lot owner might show its value to be less than it there appears, it was incompetent for the city to prove it to have been more. He relies on Section 792-a, Code Supplement, 1913, which reads:

"When any city or town council or board of public works levies any special assessment for any public improvement against any lot or tract of land, such special assessment shall be in proportion to the special benefits conferred upon the property thereby and not in excess of such benefits. Such assessment shall not exceed twenty-five per centum of the actual value of the lot or tract at the time of levy, and the last preceding assessment roll shall be taken as prima-facie evidence of such value."

It is argued that the last clause is a limitation on the city council, or at least that the council, having fixed or approved the assessed value, may not treat such value as less than its actual value, and levy a special assessment exceeding 25 per cent of its assessed value. The position is not tenable. The limitation is 25 per cent of the actual value. The qualifying word "...