Rahr Malting Co. v. City of Manitowoc
| Decision Date | 21 June 1937 |
| Citation | 274 N.W. 291,225 Wis. 401 |
| Parties | RAHR MALTING CO. v. CITY OF MANITOWOC. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County; A. F. Murphy, Judge.
Action by the Rahr Malting Company against the City of Manitowoc. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
Action commenced June 27, 1934, by appellant taxpayer against respondent city of Manitowoc to recover the sum of $20,271.73, alleged excessive tax payment on appellant's real estate in the city of Manitowoc for the year 1933, which for the year was assessed at $1,580,000. The total tax levied and assessed was in the sum of $32,613.23. Appellant claims its total assessment for the year 1933 should not have exceeded $600,000. On such assessment, its tax would amount to $12,341.50.
On March 30, 1934, appellant paid the total tax assessed, under protest. It then filed its claim against the city in the sum of $20,271.73 for alleged excessive and unlawful taxes. The city council on May 21, 1934, wholly disallowed the claim. This action was brought under section 74.73, Stats. Upon the trial in the circuit court, findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining the assessment and tax were made by the trial court upon which judgment was entered April 28, 1936, dismissing the complaint upon the merits, and for costs. Plaintiff appeals. Further material facts will be stated in the opinion.Hougen & Brady and A. L. Nash, all of Manitowoc, for appellant.
Edward Meyer, City Atty., of Manitowoc, and Edward L. Kelley, of Madison (C. E. Teitgen, of Manitowoc, of counsel), for respondent.
Appellant filed objections with the board of review to the assessment made upon its real estate for the year 1933. The total assessment was $32,613.23, and was based upon a valuation of $1,580.000.
Appellant contends that the price which could ordinarily be obtained for said real estate at private sale May 1, 1933, was not over $600,000. At the hearing before the board of review, commencing on January 16, 1934, appellant offered evidence in support of its objections to the assessment, and the respondent city offered evidence in support of the assessment. The board of review found and determined that the valuation fixed by the assessor was the full value which could ordinarily be obtained for the property at private sale on May 1, 1933, and affirmed the assessment.
Among other facts, the trial court found: That the appellant in its income tax reports to the state tax commission for the years 1931, 1932, and 1933, placed a valuation of $1,616,213.01 upon the property in question. That the gross income from the operation of its plant for the year 1931 was $535,346.90. That the net profit for the same year was $251,074.95. That during said year there was deducted from the gross income the sum of $72,878.92 for repairs. That the gross income from operation for the year 1932 was $583,636.88. That the net profit for the year was $217,470.15. That the gross income from operation for the year 1933 was $1,098,883.59. That the net profit for said year was $500,137.15. That during said year there was deducted from the gross income the sum of $75,073.54 for repairs. That on May 1, 1933, the amount of insurance carried on the buildings located upon the real estate in question was in the sum of $992,525, and in this connection the court further found: “That the insurance carried on the brick and concrete construction which predominates, is but a small fraction of the actual or reconstruction cost thereof because of its fireproof character.” The court further found that the full value which could ordinarily be obtained for said property at private sale on May 1, 1933, was the sum fixed by the assessor, and approved and confirmed by the board of review. That there was no evidence of unfairness or unjust discrimination. That there is no evidence that the board acted arbitrarily or dishonestly.
[1][2] It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dane County Title Co. v. Board of Review of City of Madison
...value of improvements on land within sec. 70.32, Stats., requiring sale value as the basis of assessment. Rahr Malting Co. v. City of Manitowoc, 1937, 225 Wis. 401, 274 N.W. 291, also treated with the assessment of real property. It was there held that under sec. 70.32(1), Stats., requiring......
-
Gooding's Estate, In re
...sell to a willing buyer not obliged to buy. Allen v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 1911, 145 Wis. 263 , 129 N.W. 1094; Rahr Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 1937, 225 Wis. 401, 274 N.W. 291.' If actual sales of the stock of the Wisconsin Box Company had taken place in close proximity to the date of deat......
-
Highlander Co. v. City of Dodgeville
...relief to the taxpayer. These are Worthington Pump & Machinery Corporation v. Cudahy, 205 Wis. 227, 237 N.W. 140;Rahr Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 225 Wis. 401, 274 N.W. 291;Wisconsin Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 225 Wis. 393, 274 N.W. 288. In none of them was the point under discussion raised or......
-
McArthur v. State (In re Ryerson's Estate)
...sell to a willing buyer not obliged to buy. Allen v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 1911, 145 Wis. 263, 129 N.W. 1094,Rahr Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 1937, 225 Wis. 401, 274 N.W. 291. To the same effect are the decisions in other jurisdictions: State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Stoddard Gin Co.,......