Ridley v. Doughty
| Decision Date | 21 May 1892 |
| Citation | 52 N.W. 350,85 Iowa 418 |
| Parties | ALMIRA RIDLEY, Administratrix, et al., Appellees, v. EDWARD D. DOUGHTY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Emmet District Court.--HON. GEORGE H. CARR, Judge.
ACTION of mandamus to compel the defendant, who is auditor of Emmet county, to make certain corrections in the tax books of the county for the year 1887. There was a trial to the court, and an order was made directing the defendant to make the correction as prayed. The defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. G Myerly, for appellant.
Soper Allen & Morling, for appellees.
The controversy relates to the assessment of taxes upon real estate in the incorporated town of Estherville for the year 1887. The material facts in the case are, in substance, as follows: The plaintiffs are owners of real estate in said town. The property was duly assessed for taxation for the year 1887. On the fifteenth day of June, 1887, at a regular meeting of the board of supervisors, the said board, acting as a board of equalization of assessments, by a resolution of the board, reduced and decreased the assessed valuation of real property within the limits of said incorporated town forty-four per centum less than the valuation made by the assessor. The county auditor then in office, who was the predecessor of the defendant, disregarded said resolution reducing the assessment, and when he made up the tax book for that year he placed said real estate on the tax book at the valuation placed thereon by the assessor, and computed the taxes thereon on that basis. On the seventh day of August, 1888, the plaintiffs made a demand in writing on the defendant that he correct the tax list to conform to the said order of the board of equalization in the matter of the reduction of valuation and taxation. The defendant refused to make the correction, and this action to compel him to do so was commenced August 10, 1888. On the twenty-third day of the same month the board of supervisors held a special meeting, at which it was resolved that the resolution passed on the fifteenth day of June was a mistake made by the then county auditor in recording the resolution, and the record was ordered amended so as to show that said resolution did not change the assessed value of the real estate within the incorporated town of Estherville. The cause has once before been appealed to this court, and upon that appeal it was determined that an action of mandamus was the proper remedy, and that it was the duty of the auditor, if he entered an erroneous valuation, to correct it. See 77 Iowa 226. We will now proceed to determine the questions presented in this appeal as raised by the answer and arguments of counsel.
It is claimed in behalf of the appellant that at the time the demand was made upon the defendant to correct the tax book, said book was out of his possession and control, and in the hands of the county treasurer, and that it was not within the lawful power of the auditor to comply with the demand. It appears to us that this question was determined in the former appeal. It is true the point was not elaborated in the opinion, but it is there held that the authority to make the correction is given him by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial