Wilcox v. Miner

• Decision Date: 17 November 1925
• Docket Number: No. 36968.,36968.
• Citation: 205 N.W. 847,201 Iowa 476
• Parties: WILCOX ET AL. v. MINER, COUNTY TREASURER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

201 Iowa 476

205 N.W. 847

WILCOX ET AL.

v.MINER, COUNTY TREASURER.

No. 36968.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 17, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Adams County; Homer Fuller, Judge.

Proceedings on motion filed by defendant in the court below to modify a decree in equity after the term at which the same was entered. Motion sustained. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Dalton & Knop, of Atlantic, and Ed Fackler, Jr., of Corning, for appellants.

Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., Herbert A. Huff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Carl Stanley, of Corning, for appellee.

STEVENS, J.

On April 18, 1924, a decree was entered in the district court of Adams county, permanently enjoining appellee, who is the treasurer of Adams county, from collecting certain taxes purporting to have been levied under the authority of chapter 48, Acts of the Fortieth General Assembly, relating to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and canceling the lien of said taxes. A portion of the tax having been paid, the court retained jurisdiction to make further orders respecting the disposition thereof. No appeal was taken from this judgment. On April 23, 1924, a curative act, known as chapter 24, Acts of the Extra Session of the Fortieth General Assembly, attempting to cure prior defects in the statute and to legalize the prior levy of taxes thereunder, and directing the treasurer to collect and distribute the same in accordance with the statute as legalized, became effective.

On October 3, 1924, appellee filed a motion to modify the above decree so as to permit the carrying out of the provisions of the curative act. Appellants moved to strike the above motion from the files, upon the ground that it was a mere attempt to relitigate the matters involved and already disposed of by final decree, and that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion or to modify the decree. The motion to strike was overruled, and appellants filed answer setting up merely that the decree was final, and that all matters involved in the action were fully adjudicated thereby, and that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the said motion or to modify or vacate the decree or any part thereof.

[1] The validity of the curative act is in no way attacked by appellants, and we shall therefore treat it as valid. Nor was any claim made in the court below that the original act, as supplemented by the curative act, is invalid. Many authorities are cited by counsel for appellants to sustain the well-recognized rule that the Legislature cannot exercise judicial powers and cannot reverse, vacate, or overrule the judgment or decree of a court. McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 19 S. Ct. 134, 43 L. Ed. 382;People ex rel. Laferty v. Owen, 286 Ill. 638, 122 N. E. 132, 3 A. L. R. 447;McNichol v. U. S. Mercantile Reporter, 74 Mo. 457;Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 427, 69 N. W. 595, 62 Am. St. Rep. 878;Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. People ex rel. McCord, 219 Ill. 408, 76 N. E. 571; Ex parte Darling, 16 Nev. 98, 40 Am. Rep. 495;Sprague v. Clark et al., 300 Ill. 583, 133 N. E. 247;In re Siblerud et al., 148 Minn. 347, 182 N. W. 168.

[2] It is also equally well settled that the Legislature may validate that which has previously been declared invalid in a judicial proceeding, particularly where a public right is involved. Hodges v. Snyder, 45 S. D. 149, 186 N. W. 867, 25 A. L. R. 1128;Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U. S. 600, 43 S. Ct. 435, 67 L. Ed. 819;Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 15 L. Ed. 435;Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 416, 19 S. Ct. 183, 43 L. Ed. 498; Donley v. Pittsburgh, 147 Pa. 348, 23 A. 394, 30 Am. St. Rep. 738;Blount v. Janesville, 31 Wis. 659;Nottage v. Portland, 35 Or. 539, 58 P. 883, 76 Am. St. Rep. 474;Richman v. Muscatine County, 77 Iowa, 513, 42 N. W. 422, 4 L. R. A. 445, 14 Am. St. Rep. 308;Emporia v. Bates, 16 Kan. 495;Hall v. Street Commissioners, 177 Mass. 434, 59 N. E. 68;Lewis County v. Gordon, 20 Wash. 80, 54 P. 779;Skagit County v. McLean, 20 Wash. 92, 54 P. 781;State v. Henry, 28 Wash. 38, 68 P. 368; State v. Newark, 34 N. J. Law, 236; Howell v. Buffalo, 37 N. Y. 267;Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 409, 9 Am. Rep. 578;Marion County v. L. & N. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 15 S. W. 1061.

Appellees do not in argument claim that the court has power to vacate or modify a decree in equity adjudicating vested private rights after the term at which it was entered in a proceeding such as we are considering. We shall therefore assume, without discussion or decision, for the purposes of this appeal, that the contention of appellants on this point is sound. This does not, however, necessarily dispose of the case. In the absence of some attack on the validity of the statute, we will treat it as in all respects valid and enforceable. Assuming the validity of...