Hinton v. Dragoo, Auditor of Delaware County
| Decision Date | 14 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 11,186 |
| Citation | 134 N.E. 212,77 Ind.App. 563 |
| Parties | HINTON v. DRAGOO, AUDITOR OF DELAWARE COUNTY, ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Delaware Circuit Court; W. A. Thompson, Judge.
Proceedings in the matter of the tax assessment against Lucetta Hinton by James P. Dragoo, auditor of Delaware county and others. From a judgment of the circuit court sustaining the tax assessment, Hinton appeals.
Affirmed.
Francis A. Shaw, for appellant.
F Clayton Mansfield, for appellees.
On September 15, 1919, the auditor of Delaware county, Indiana added certain amounts to the tax duplicate thereof, as the valuation of property belonging to appellant, not assessed for taxation for a period of thirty-four successive years beginning with the year 1885, and charged her on said duplicate with the sum of $ 1,883.56, as the taxes on such property for said years. An appeal was taken from this assessment to the Delaware Circuit Court, where judgment was rendered sustaining the same. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and this appeal followed. On the trial in the circuit court it was agreed in substance, that appellant and one Joseph Hinton were married in 1865, and lived together as husband and wife in Delaware county, Indiana, continuously, until the death of the former in 1917, and that appellant has continued to live therein since the death of her husband; that subsequent to appellant's said marriage there became due her from the estate of her father the sum of $ 2,800, which was paid to her said husband direct, with her knowledge and consent, instead of to herself; that of said amount $ 2,000 was so paid on or prior to September 12, 1885, and the remainder thereof was so paid on or about February 9, 1891; that the said Joseph Hinton never paid appellant said amount or any part thereof, or any interest thereon, but retained the same until his death; that subsequent to the death of her said husband, appellant filed a claim against his estate for said sum and accrued interest, and on March 25, 1918, recovered judgment thereon for $ 8,077.73, and appellant thereafter received full payment thereof; that no property was ever assessed to appellant for taxation, prior to the death of her said husband, except a house and lot in the town of Gaston and another in the town of Matthews, nor did she pay taxes on any other property prior to said time; that appellant, after the death of her said husband and prior to January 1, 1919, was never assessed for taxation with any personal property, and never paid any taxes thereon during said time; that prior to said date, appellant was never assessed in her own name on any item of indebtedness due her from her said husband, and never at any time, prior to March 25, 1919, paid any taxes on any such item of indebtedness; that on and prior to March, 1883, and continuously thereafter to the date of his death, said Joseph Hinton was the owner of real and personal property in said county, consisting in part of more than 160 acres of valuable land; that during each and every year from 1883 to 1917, said real and personal property was assessed for taxation in said county in his name, and all the taxes so assessed were fully paid by him; that appellant never received from her said husband any note or other written evidence of any indebtedness due her from him by reason of his receipt of said moneys, nor did she at any time during his life demand the payment of the same from him; that on September 15, 1919, the auditor of said county placed on the tax duplicate thereof, in the name of appellant, as personal property omitted from the tax duplicates, the sum of $ 2,000 for the years 1885 to 1890 inclusive, and the sum of $ 2,800 for the years 1891 to 1918, inclusive; that said auditor made a calculation of the taxes due on said omitted property for said years and found that they amounted to $ 1,883.56, which sum he charged against appellant on said duplicate; that all notices required by law for placing omitted property on tax duplicates were duly given to appellant. An agreement was also made as to the rate of taxation for all purposes in the township of said county in which appellant resided during all of said years. In addition to said agreement, there was substantial evidence tending to show that appellant alleged in the claim, which she filed against her deceased husband's estate for said $ 2,800 and accrued interest, that she had loaned said sum to her husband, and that he had agreed to repay the same to her. The finding, on which the court based its judgment in favor of appellant by reason of her said claim, was introduced in evidence. It reads in part as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial