Montis v. McQuiston

• Decision Date: 05 April 1899
• Citation: 107 Iowa 651,78 N.W. 704
• Parties: MONTIS v. MCQUISTON, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 Iowa 651

78 N.W. 704

MONTIS

v.MCQUISTON, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 5, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. P. Holmes, Judge.

Plaintiff, a taxpayer in the Seventh assessorial district of the city of Des Moines, brings this action, for himself and the other taxpayers of said district, to enjoin the collection of the taxes based on an increase of 20 per cent. on the valuation of all the real estate in said district for the year 1897, made by the defendant board, as is alleged, without warrant of law and illegally. Defendants' demurrer to the petition was overruled, and, they refusing to further plead, a decree was rendered against them as prayed, from which they appeal. Affirmed.W. G. Harvison, for appellants.

Read & Read, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. The petition shows that the city of Des Moines is divided into nine assessorial districts, with an assessor in each; that plaintiff owns, and pays taxes on, real estate in the Seventh district, and that the defendant board, sitting as a board of equalization, raised the valuation of all real estate in said district 20 per cent. in excess of the valuation fixed by the assessor and by the city board of equalization; also, that, unless restrained, the defendant will proceed to assess and collect taxes based upon said increased valuation. Defendants demurred “for that the facts therein stated do not entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded.”

2. Appellants contend, in argument, that plaintiff's remedy was by appeal from the action of the defendant board, or by certiorari. It is insisted that this contention was not made in the district court, and therefore cannot be considered in this court. The contention is answered in Rood v. Board, 39 Iowa, 444, where it is said: “In this state, however, it has been uniformly held that if the tax is illegal, and not merely irregular, its enforcement will be restrained by injunction,”--citing cases. This increase is not merely irregular.It is either legal or illegal; and, if the latter, injunction will lie.

3. We now come to the real question in controversy, namely, whether the defendant board had power to make the increase that they did. The law as it was in 1897 vested the power to equalize individual assessments in township trustees and city councils. The county board was authorized to “equalize the assessments of the several townships, cities and incorporated towns of their counties--substantially as the...