Mead's Estate v. Story County

• Decision Date: 21 January 1903
• Parties: IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES MEAD, Deceased, Appellee, v. STORY COUNTY et al, Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

93 N.W. 88

119 Iowa 69

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES MEAD, Deceased, Appellee, v. STORY COUNTY et al, Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 21, 1903

Appeal from Story District Court.--HON. J. R. WHITAKER, Judge.

PRIOR to April 19, 1901, the estate of Charles Mead, deceased, late of Story county, had been fully settled and distribution made under orders of the district court in and for said county. The appellees are the widow and children of said Charles Mead, and distributees of his estate. On said date the appellant J. Q. Burgess, auditor of said county, acting upon information furnished him by so-called "tax ferrets," issued a notice addressed "To Charles Mead Estate," setting forth that for the year 1896 there was omitted from the assessment of said estate moneys and credits in the sum of $ 47,588, and that unless cause was shown to the contrary within ten days, said property would be listed and assessed and taxes extended thereon. An appearance was made on behalf of the distributees of said estate, and objections filed. On May 15, 1901, the auditor assumed to further act in the premises, and made a finding that for the year 1896 there was omitted from assessment and taxation of the moneys and credits belonging to said estate the sum of $ 47,588 actual value and $ 23,794 taxable value, and thereupon he, said auditor, entered upon the tax rolls of said county an assessment based upon such findings, and carried out a tax in the sum of $ 1,023.14 principal sum, with $ 255.78 interest. From the action of the auditor an appeal was taken to the district court by the said distributees of said estate. Pleadings on behalf of both parties were filed, and a trial was had, resulting in a decree by which it was declared and adjudged the assessment and tax so made and levied by the county auditor was without authority of law, was null and void, and the same was ordered canceled. The auditor and the county appeals.

Affirmed.

Albrook & Lundy for appellants.

Dudley & Coffin for appellees.

OPINION

BISHOP, C. J.

Several questions are made upon the face of the record and presented in argument. We think the determination of one of such questions must result in a disposition of the case. It is agreed that the auditor assumed to act under and by authority of chapter 47, Acts 28th General Assembly, and it is conceded that, unless he was authorized to so act by the provisions of said chapter, the decree of the court below was right, and should be affirmed. Previous to the enactment of the present statute, the power of the county auditor in the respect in question, as declared by section 841 of the Code of 1873, re-enacted as section 1385 of the Code of 1897 was limited to the correction of errors in the assessment and tax list, "and when such correction affecting the amount of tax is made after the books shall have passed into the hands of the treasurer, he shall charge or credit him as the case may be therefor, and report the same to the board of supervisors." The present statute, as shown by its title, is an act relative to the correction of assessment and tax lists. Section 1385 of the Code is thereby in terms repealed, and it is then provided that: "The auditor may correct any error in the assessment or tax list, and may assess and list for taxation any omitted property; but before assessing and listing for taxation any omitted property he shall notify by registered letter the person, firm corporation, or administrator, or other person in whose name the property is taxed, to appear * * * within ten days, * * * and show cause * * * why such correction or assessment should not be made * * *. And if such correction or assessment is made after the books have passed into the hands of the treasurer, he shall be charged or credited therefor as the case may be."

It seems clear that under Code, section 1385, the county auditor was authorized to correct only errors of commission appearing in the assessment or tax list, and to which his attention might be called in any way. It is equally clear that by the act of the 28th General Assembly there was added to the powers of the auditor the right to correct errors of omission as well as of commission. There is nothing in the section of the Code, or in the later act of the general assembly however from which the conclusion may properly be drawn that it was the legislative intention to invest the auditor with power to thus deal with any assessment or tax list save that of the current year. On the contrary, it seems to us that if, in the preparation of such list, or if, after the same had been prepared by him and passed to the treasurer, errors or omissions were discovered, it became his duty to correct the same. Such, we think, is the plain purport of the statute. Surely, there is nothing in the provisions thereof which gives the auditor the right, or what is the...