King v. Parker

• Decision Date: 15 October 1887
• Citation: 73 Iowa 757,34 N.W. 451
• Parties: KING v. PARKER AND OTHERS
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 757

34 N.W. 451

KING

v.PARKER AND OTHERS

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 15, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Montgomery county.

Action for an injunction brought against the county supervisors, auditor, and treasurer of Montgomery county to cancel a certain assessment, and to prevent the defendants from enforcing the collection of the tax. The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition, and he appeals.W. S. Strawn, for appellant.

R. W. Beeson, for appellees.

ADAMS, C. J.

In April, 1885, the board of equalization of Montgomery county added to the plaintiff's assessment $3,000 as money and credits. The plaintiff avers that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the board to make such assessment, and that the same is void.

The plaintiff claims that on January 1, 1885, he was not a resident of Montgomery county, but of Burlington, Des Moines county. He so averred in his petition, and so testified. The facts are, however, that he had no family, that he did not keep house, and was a mere boarder wherever he was. For the last six or eight years he has spent most of his time at Red Oak, Montgomery county, and had a post-office box there. He does not appear to have voted, nor to have paid any taxes, anywhere. According to his testimony, some of his clothing and his trunks remained in Burlington, and were at a private boardinghouse where he had at times boarded, but it is not shown what proportion of his clothing was there, or how often he returned to it, or whether he had occasion to return to it at all. The evidence upon this point is so meager that we are led to suspect that the clothing, upon which considerable stress is placed in argument, was a trifling matter, and that the plaintiff seldom went to Burlington for any purpose, and remained there but little when he did go. It does not appear that he had any business there, or any property there which required any attention, or that there was any reason for his being there at any time. His property, as we conclude from the evidence, consisted almost entirely of money and credits and real estate, and the latter was in Montgomery county and neighboring counties, and he spent his time at Red Oak because his interests were such that it was more convenient for him to be there. When approached by the assessors of Montgomery county, he gave in a small amount of personal property, as if a resident of the county, and without a suggestion that he was a non-resident, and that his personal property was not properly assessable there. This, to our mind, is a very significant fact. Taking the evidence as a whole, we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff regarded himself really a resident of Montgomery county, January 1, 1885, though sometimes claiming to the contrary.

One position taken by the plaintiff in his argument is that it was incumbent upon the defendants to prove that at the time the board added the $3,000 of money and credits to the plaintiff's assessments there was a quorum present, and that a majority concurred, and that they had some proper evidence to act...