Polk Co. v. City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 15 December 1886
• Citation: 30 N.W. 614,70 Iowa 351
• Parties: POLK CO. v. CITY OF DES MOINES AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 351

30 N.W. 614

POLK CO.

v.CITY OF DES MOINES AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 15, 1886.

Appeal from Polk circuit court.

In the year 1885 the assessor elected by the city of Des Moines assessed certain real estate which belonged to the Des Moines Water-works Company at $60,000. This assessment was subsequently reduced by the city council, acting as a board of equalization, to $6,000. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action, alleging in its petition that the actual value of said property was $250,000, and that there existed a contract between the city and the water-works company, by the terms of which the city was liable to pay all taxes that should be levied on the property of the water-works company, and that the action of the board of equalization in reducing said assessment was not intended in good faith as an equalization of the assessment, but was done for the purpose of protecting the city from its liability for the tax that might be levied on the property, and that the action was injurious to plaintiff and the state; and it prayed for a writ of certiorari, and that the action of the board be adjudged void, and that the original assessment of $60,000 be restored. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, on the ground that the proceeding by certiorari would not lie for the correction of errors of the nature of that complained of. Plaintiff appealed.Baylis & Baylis, for appellant.

James H. Detrick and Nourse, Kauffman & Gurnsey, for appellee.

REED, J.

It is provided by section 3216 of the Code that “the writ of certiorari may be granted whenever specially authorized by law, and especially in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded his proper jurisdiction, or is otherwise acting illegally, whenever in the judgment of the superior court there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.” The board of equalization was empowered by statute to increase or diminish the valuation of the property affected by its order as it might deem just and necessary for an equitable distribution of the burden of taxation. Code, § 829. It cannot be said, therefore, that it “exceeded its proper jurisdiction” in making the order complained of, for it made it in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it. It is claimed by the appellant, however, that the action of the board is illegal, because of the motive or purpose that prompted it. The...