Leonard v. Cnty. of Madison

• Decision Date: 08 October 1884
• Citation: 20 N.W. 742,64 Iowa 418
• Parties: LEONARD v. COUNTY OF MADISON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

64 Iowa 418

20 N.W. 742

LEONARD

v.COUNTY OF MADISON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 8, 1884.

Appeal from Madison circuit court.

Action to recover for taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted of the plaintiff by the defendant, and paid by the plaintiff under such illegal exaction. There was a trial to a jury. A peremptory instruction having been given by the court to the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, a verdict was rendered accordingly, and judgment was rendered thereon. The plaintiff appeals.John Leonard, for himself, appellant.

Ruby & Wilkin, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

The taxes in question were paid upon 150 shares of stock which the plaintiff owned in the National Bank of Winterset. This stock was assessed at $9,000. The plaintiff at the time was indebted in the sum of $11,000. No deduction was allowed him in any way for the indebtedness. About two years after the payment he made an application to the board of supervisors to refund the amount paid on his bank stock, which application the board refused.

It seems to be conceded that the plaintiff would have been entitled in the outset to a deduction which would have relieved him from the tax, and that if he had appeared before the board of equalization and claimed the deduction, the board could not properly have refused it, or if they had, that their action might have been corrected on appeal. He did not thus appear, and the principal question presented is whether, under the circumstances, a court can regard the taxes as erroneously or illegally exacted or paid, and so refundable under the statute upon which the plaintiff relies, section 870 of the Code. The statute is in these words: “The board of supervisors shall direct the treasurer to refund to the tax-payer any tax, or any portion of any tax, found to have been erroneonsly or illegally exacted or paid,” etc. There is no pretense that the assessor should have made the deduction under the circumstances shown. It does not appear, indeed, that he had any knowledge of the plaintiff's indebtedness. His action, therefore, was, under the circumstances, strictly regular. The levy properly followed the assessment, and the tax was paid by the plaintiff without objection. We see, then, nothing erroneous or illegal in any act of any officer pertaining to the assessment, levy, or collection of this tax.

The first time that the fact of the plaintiff's indebtedness was brought to the attention of any officer was when he...