Lyons v. Bd. of Equal. of City of Ottumwa

• Decision Date: 10 April 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 711,102 Iowa 1
• Parties: LYONS v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CITY OF OTTUMWA.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 Iowa 1

70 N.W. 711

LYONS

v.BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CITY OF OTTUMWA.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 10, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Wapello county; M. A. Roberts, Judge.

This is an appeal on the part of the plaintiff from the action of the district court in dismissing his appeal from the defendant board of equalization. It is stipulated by the parties that the finding of facts contained in the decree of the court shall be treated as embracing all of the facts for the purposes of this appeal. That finding is as follows: “(1) That the assessor of Center township, above county, assessed and valued the property in question (being a stock of merchandise) at $500; that afterwards the defendant, the board of equalization, raised such assessment to $1,250; that its said action was taken after due notice upon plaintiff, and was done and had in the usual prescribed way, and was regular in all respects as to the method and manner of procedure; and that said board acted carefully and deliberately in the matter, and, in view of the evidence before it, decided the case honestly and fairly, and properly and fairly exercised whatever discretion, if any, was by law vested in said board in regard to said matter. (2) From the evidence introduced upon the trial before this court, the court finds that, as compared with the assessed valuation that year upon similar classes and kinds of merchandise in said city, and in view of the actual and fair market value of said stock of merchandise in question, as established by a preponderance of the evidence, it should have been assessed and valued at $500, and no more.” Upon the foregoing finding of facts, the court found, as conclusions of law: (1) That, under the statutes, said board was vested with the discretion of determining the facts, and making a just and equitable assessment of the property in question. (2) That as there was no proof that said discretion was not properly exercised, but, on the contrary, it appeared to have been honestly and fairly exercised, the court had no power to change or modify the assessment as fixed by said board. It therefore dismissed the case, at plaintiff's costs. To which finding, and the judgment entered in accordance therewith, the plaintiff excepted and appeals. Reversed.Work & Lewis, for appellant.

W. W. Epps, City Sol., for appellee.

KINNE, C. J.

1. It is clear that the conclusions of law of the district court upon the facts found were wrong. This court has several times decided that, in case of such appeals, it is the duty of the district court to make a just and equitable assessment. In Davis v. City of Clinton, 55 Iowa, 549, 8...