Lake City Electric Light Co. v. McCrary

• Decision Date: 15 December 1906
• Citation: 110 N.W. 19,132 Iowa 624
• Parties: LAKE CITY ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee, v. T. W. MCCRARY, COUNTY TREASURER, AND CALHOUN COUNTY, IOWA, Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

110 N.W. 19

132 Iowa 624

LAKE CITY ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee, v. T. W. MCCRARY, COUNTY TREASURER, AND CALHOUN COUNTY, IOWA, Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 15, 1906

Appeal from Calhoun District Court.--HON. F. M. POWERS, Judge.

ACTION in equity to enjoin collection of tax. Decree for plaintiff and defendants appeal.

Reversed.

J. B McCrary, for appellants.

E. C Stevenson, for appellee.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff is the owner of an electric light plant in the city of Lake City, Iowa. The assessed valuation of this property, as listed and returned by the assessor of said city for the year 1900, was $ 8,000; for the year 1902, $ 7,500, and for the years 1903 and 1904, $ 12,000. The taxes levied in each of said years on the taxable proportion of the assessed valuation have never been paid, and this action is brought to enjoin the treasurer from their collection.

The demand for this release from liability is based on the claim that the assessment of the property and levy of taxes thereon are void because the assessor, in fixing said valuation, included therein the value of the plaintiff's franchise as well as the value of the tangible property constituting the electric light plant. The evidence, relied upon to sustain this allegation, is found in a paragraph of an agreed statement of facts which reads as follows: "That when said assessments were made all the property, including franchises and every holding and asset of said institution, was taken and included in fixing the said assessments, and that the value fixed was the value of all of said holdings. That the value of all property embraced in the buildings, machinery, mains, poles, wires belonging to said corporation was, and is eight thousand dollars, and that with said franchises the total value is $ 12,000, the assessed value for said years." It is said in argument that, under the laws of this State, the franchise of a public service corporation is not taxable, and that the agreed statement of facts clearly shows that the taxes in controversy were levied upon the plaintiff's franchise, and are therefore void and uncollectible. Of the statute governing the assessment of such property (Code, section 1343) this court has said that it "was apparently drawn with care to exclude the idea of making the franchise a distinct item of valuation in the assessment of such property for taxation" (Marion v. Railroad Co., 120 Iowa 259); and if we had here an assessment of a franchise and levy of taxes thereon we should feel impelled, under the authority of this precedent, to sustain the decree entered by the trial court. But we find no such state of facts. The only property listed and assessed was the electric light plant. The fact, if it be a fact, that, in arriving at its value, the assessor proceeded upon a wrong theory, or took into consideration elements and conditions which should have been left out of the calculation, and thereby gave to the property an exaggerated valuation, would have no effect to invalidate the assessment, or render void the levy of taxes thereon. Such an error is neither more nor less than an excessive valuation for the remedy of which the owner may apply to the proper board of review. This remedy, we have often held, is exclusive, and, if neglected or ignored, equity will not interfere to relieve the owner from his obligation to pay the taxes levied upon such assessment. See Collins v. Keokuk, 118 Iowa 30, 91 N.W. 791, and causes there cited.

It is true that the tangible property of the plaintiff was of the agreed value of $ 8,000 and that, with its franchises, the total value was $ 12,000, a sum equal to the value fixed by the assessor, but this is by no means an agreement that the franchise was assessed for taxation; and, even if it were so agreed, it would be contradicted by the other agreed fact that the assessment listed and returned by the assessor was the single sum of $ 12,000 on the property of plaintiff. Had the assessor listed and...