Indep. Dist. of Corwith v. District Tp. of Luverne

• Decision Date: 17 December 1898
• Citation: 107 Iowa 73,77 N.W. 525
• Parties: INDEPENDENT DIST. OF CORWITH v. DISTRICT TP. OF LUVERNE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 Iowa 73

77 N.W. 525

INDEPENDENT DIST. OF CORWITH

v.DISTRICT TP. OF LUVERNE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 17, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Kossuth county; W. B. Quarton, Judge.

This is an action in equity to set aside an award of arbitrators made under section 1715 of the Code of 1873. Decree was rendered dismissing plaintiff's petition, and for costs. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.C. R. Wood and Sullivan & McMahon, for appellant.

Clarke & Cohenour, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

The plaintiff district was organized in the spring of 1887; taking as part of its territory sections 1, 2, 11, and 12, township 94, range 27, out of the district township. In 1891 the plaintiff brought an action in the district court, “praying a writ of mandamus issue against the defendant, requiring the defendant to meet with plaintiff for the purpose of making equitable division of the assets and liabilities of said defendant.” Judgment was rendered as prayed, which judment was affirmed on appeal to this court. See 88 Iowa, 713, 54 N. W. 221. Arbitrators were selected, the matter submitted to them, and on the 9th day of April, 1896, an award, signed by two of the arbitrators, was filed in the office of the clerk, finding “that upon the equitable settlement between the parties there is two hundred dollars ($200) due this plaintiff from defendant.” The other arbitrator filed a report finding “in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,769.67, with 6 per cent. interest on $1,608.39 for equated time same has been held by them.” It appears that for the years 1883 to 1886, inclusive, the defendant had received $173.94 taxes derived from said sections 1, 2, 11, and 12; also, that for the years 1887 to 1894, both inclusive, the defendant realized $1,608.39 taxes derived from said sections. There were no other assets or liabilities to be equitably divided. It is appellant's contention that these entire taxes, with interest, should have been awarded to the plaintiff; while appellee contends that it was only the assets existing at the time the plaintiff district was organized that the arbitrators had any power to consider, and that the allowance of $200 was an equitable division of the taxes then in the hands of the defendant to which the plaintiff was entitled.

Said section 1715, Code 1873, provides that, in case of the formation or change of boundaries of independent districts, “the respective boards of directors shall, immediately after such organization, make an equitable division of the then existing assets and liabilities between the old and new districts; and in case of failure to agree, the matter may be decided by arbitrators chosen by the parties in interest.” The evident purpose of this...