Perkins v. City of Burlington

• Decision Date: 20 May 1889
• Citation: 77 Iowa 553,42 N.W. 441
• Parties: PERKINS v. CITY OF BURLINGTON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 553

42 N.W. 441

PERKINS

v.CITY OF BURLINGTON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 20, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; CHARLES H. PHELPS, Judge.

The plaintiff is the owner of 18 acres of land within the corporate limits of the city of Burlington. In the year 1886 the city authorities assessed said land for taxation, and levied taxes thereon for city purposes. The plaintiff brought this action in equity, to enjoin the city and its treasurer from the collection of said taxes, upon the ground that said land was not subject to city taxes. The cause was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, and there was a decree dismissing the petition. Plaintiff appeals.J. W. Blythe, for appellant.

Seerley & Clark, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The land upon which the taxes were levied constitutes the plaintiff's homestead, and it lies within the boundaries of the city, as defined by an act of the general assembly of this state, approved February 14, 1851. No city taxes were levied upon the land until the year 1886. The location and purposes for which the premises have been used are set forth in the agreed statement of facts, as follows: “The aforesaid tract of land is not, and has never been, divided into lots, nor intersected by streets or alleys, but has been used and occupied in one entire tract by the plaintiff as his homestead. About three-quarters of an acre is occupied by the house and a portion of the lawn of the plaintiff; about an acre is occupied by barns and outbuildings and stable-yard, and a small portion is occupied by a house, for the accommodation and residence of the plaintiff's servant, engaged in the care of his domestic animals and other matters about his residence, and from which no rent is now, or ever has been, derived, except as the same has been included in the compensation of the servant for his labor. The remainder of the tract of land is occupied by garden, orchard, and wooded pasture-land. The tract is situated more than one mile from the business center, and a large part thereof is not suitable for subdivision into lots.” Second. “It is further agreed that the above-described tract of land is not held for speculative purposes, nor with the intention of dividing the same into lots, but that it is, and for many years has been, occupied by the plaintiff and his family as their homestead and residence, and used in good faith, in the manner and for the purposes above set out, and for no other purpose, and with the intention of so continuing.” A plat of the land, and of that part of the city adjacent to it, is exhibited with and made a part of the agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the land adjoining plaintiff's, on all sides, is laid out in lots and streets and alleys. There are streets on three sides, and an alley on the other side. An electric light is maintained by the city at the intersection of the streets, at one corner of the land, and the city also lights at public expense a line of gas-lamps upon one of the streets to plaintiff's house. The city water-works extend to plaintiff's residence, and there is a public hydrant in front of his house. A fire station is maintained...