Union Pac. R. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs

• Decision Date: 16 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 33033.,33033.
• Citation: Union Pac. R. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 175 N.W. 7 (Iowa 1919)
• Parties: UNION PAC. R. CO. v. CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

175 N.W. 7

UNION PAC. R. CO.

v.CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS ET AL.

No. 33033.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 16, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Pottawattamie County; O. D. Wheeler, Judge.

“Not to be officially reported.”

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment fixing the value of the east one-half of its bridge across the Missouri river between Council Bluffs and Omaha for the purpose of taxation.Affirmed.Wright & Baldwin and Addison G. Kistle, all of Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Henry Peterson, City Sol., and C. E. Swanson, Co. Atty., both of Council Bluffs, for appellees.

STEVENS, J.

The plaintiff owns a bridge across the Missouri river between Council Bluffs and Omaha and uses same, together with certain terminal facilities, in conjunction with several other railway corporations as lessees.The assessable value of the east one-half of the bridge was fixed in 1913 at $400,000; in 1915, which is the assessment complained of, at $700,000.This assessment was reduced by the board of equalization to $600,000, and upon appeal to the district court to $400,000.

Counsel for appellant do not rely for reversal upon a claim that the valuation fixed by the court exceeds the actual value of the bridge, but upon their contention that if $400,000 is, in fact, its actual value, it is not assessed in proportion to other real property in Council Bluffs.The assessor who was sworn and examined on behalf of plaintiff, testified as follows:

“Q.Isn't it a fact, Mr. Riker, in assessing real estate in this city (Council Bluffs) for that year, in arriving at the actual value for taxation purposes, you took 60 per cent. of what you considered the market value of the property to be?A.I did, in a way, in order to give the assessed the benefit of the doubt in case there was depreciation, etc.Q.In arriving at the actual value for purpose of taxation you took about 60 per cent. of the fair market value of the property?A.Approximately so.”

[1] As stated, the valuation of the bridge fixed by the assessor was $300,000 in excess of that placed thereon in 1913.If the record disclosed that all other real property in the city of Council Bluffs was, in fact, assessed at 60 per cent. of its actual value and the bridge at its full value, such assessment could not be sustained, for the reason stated in Ia. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Board, 176 Iowa, 134, 157 N. W. 732:

“The paramount object which the law seeks to insure in distributing the burdens of taxation is equality; and, although the property of a taxpayer is assessed at less than its true value, nevertheless, if it is assessed higher proportionately than other property, he has a just cause of complaint.It is hardly necessary to cite authorities upon this proposition, but seeBurnham v. Barber, 70 Iowa, 87[30 N. W. 20];Barz v. Board of Equalization, 133 Iowa, 563[111 N. W. 41];Reiniger v. Board of Review, 157 Iowa, 193[138 N. W. 399].”

[2] No evidence was offered upon the question of the valuation of other real property in Council Bluffs, except the assessor further...