427' AiDan W:l1o bUys negoiiable securities, as tlle complainant appell-rs to.hava' from a person who is not able to deliver them, because I at the time in the actual possession of SOlUe third party, certainly no greater right or better title. than his vendor possessed. As the 22 bonds in controversy were obviously issued without author-; ity of law; and as they have never been negotiated in such manner as to furnish any person or corporation with a pretense for attempting to force them against. the township as an innocent purchaser for value, a decree will be entered on the cross-bill 9.irecting their surrender to the proper officers of the township for cancellation.
KEITHSBURG BRIDGE Oo.et al. 1.
'V.
McKAY,
et ale , I
(Circuit Court, 8. D. IO'Wa, C. D.:May 22, 1890.) TAXATION-BRIDGE CoMPANIES-VOID ASSESSMENT.
The assessment of a tax against a bridge company; owning a bridge across the Mississippi river from Iowa to Illinois, by the, county auditor, (after the listll for that year have pasl*W.from the assessor,) under. COde Iowa, § 841, glvmg the eouJlty auditor power to eorrect the assessment or tax. books, where such asseS8-. mentIillllsde as on personal property, when the only property owned by the como' pany is part of its bridge and the approach thereto, is void, since Code Iowa, 5 makesruilroad bridges across the Mississippi river taxable as realty. '
I
808, ,
In suc)l, where the bridge company.is a non-resid\lnt of Iowa. the circuit court Of the United States has jUrisdiction to enjoin collection of the tax, and can. . . .
,
In Equity. Bill to restrain collection of tax, and to cancel saine; as void and illegal. ' " Anthony (J. Daly, for complainants. E. B. Tu.cker and Arthur Springer, for defendants. SHIRAS; J. The bill ill this CRuse was filed for the purpose of restrain- ' ing the collection of a tax standing against the Keithsburg Brid/1;e Company in Louisa 'county, Iowa, and for the cancellation of the same upoti the records, so as to remove the cloud cast thereby upon complainant'$' property, upon the ground that such tax is wholly void. The' case was submHted to the court upon the following agreed statement.of facts: "It is agreed. for purposes of trial in the above intervening matter: . "Fir;;t. That the' Keithsburg Bridge COIupany was, and is, and has lilways been sinooits oJ'/ol'Rnizl\tioll io1882, a corporatiun, resident, and a citizen of the state of Illinois; that E. L. Dudley was duly appuinted receiver of the Central Iowa 'UailwHy by order of this court, in this caUse. and that as such receiver, in the year A. D. 1887, and during the whole of .sHid year,he in the possession and control of the Keithsburg bridge. across the Mississippi river ,fIlum a point on the Iowa shore in the townsh ip of Eliot and county 'Of' I Louisa, Iowa. to thetuwn of Keithsburg. on the lIlinuis and of liU'af' its:appurtehsnces and' approaches, and he was, obligated' (0 pay the valid (8x.es oJ1said'bridgepro1Jerty: thattlle ,defendants are'eltizens and.resident8 Of Iowa, .. I. ' I
, ,FJ!ipERAL, REPORTER,· vol.
42.
southern district of Iowa, and were such citizens and residenlis at of the commeuc;ement of .this snit and intervening biIl. "Second. That said 'bridge company owned in said Louisa county. Iowa. only this. viz.· the Keithsburg bridge across the Mississippi river, and the approaches thereto; that there are several hundred feet of the said bridge in Iowa. and sevei'al hundred feet of the approaches to said .bridge in Iowa.-the bridge approaches being railway track. consisting of earth. ballast. piling, ties. steel raiIs.and timbers. , That the said bridge company did not own, i,n A.D. 1887. any personalproperty in Iowa, unless the said bridge across the Mississippi river. and t'he ap'prollches thereto, are personal property. "Fou1'th. That the said bridge company did not own any 'corporation stocks in A. D. U!87. "Fifth. 'fhat no assessment was made against the bridge company for 1887. in Iowa, by the township assessor. or by the township board of equalization, "Sixth. That in June. A. D.1887, when the board of supervisorsof J.ouisa county, ,faWN, ,;was in SeSsion as the cbuntybOli.rdof equalization', the county auditor WIiS by the said board assess the said Bridge Company. and the said aumtor did so accordingly assess the said bridge company then aud there. and at a later day of said June s.ession the record of said was upan,d approved. and the following is l\ hue copy of the r.ecQrdof the lIaid board at the said June. 1887. meeting, so far as it relates to the matter in, hand: I In the matter of the'assessment of the property of the Keithsburg CompanY which the assessor of Eliot township. of Louisa hasomitteq to place upon the books of his township. it is or· dered that the auditor of thisconnty place ,said property upon the assessment b()oks of Eliot township, and the tax-books of the county. at the valuationof.oneh'lI11dred andeignty th()lIsand dollars, ($180,000.00.) and that he extend such general and local taxes against said valuation as may be levied in Eliot township by the board of supervisors at their September, 1887, session, apu , " ' , "/se'/Jenth. That the said auditor of s.aid county of Louisa assessed the said Keithsburg Bridge Company. and the following is a true copy of the assessment made. and as entered upon 'the taX-books of said Louisa county: Kettb,sbv,rg Bridge Co.. "II
and of the
CORPORATION STOCKS.
TOTAL PERSONAL PROPERTY.
TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY.
ALL
$180;000.00.
$180,000.00.
$180,000,00.
Ei!Jhth.Thatneither ,the board of supervisors. as county board of equalior ot)lel'wise. nor auditor, i{ave any notice to anyone to the effect tl)at the auditor was about to assess, or to any other effllctj in fact, no notic.e Whatever was given., ' "Ninth. That neither the bridge company, nor the receiver, nor the railW'aycompany had any actual knowledge that any aSsessment was to be made of said bridge property; nor did they. or any of them, take any steps whatever . . ' ' to have said property asses.sed or taxed. . "'l'enth. That the b,ridge company did not know that such assessment was made, neither did the receiver nor the railway company, until March. A. D. 1$88., . " , Eleventh. That the tax or assessment so made called fOl' the payment of fQrty-nine and fl:vedollars, .($4,905.00.) , the Iowa law permits the payment of one-half of tax befo,reA,pril 1st,. apdpayment of balance may be deferred to la.r;t day of September. :" 1'hi,temth;i That the said receiver, in accordance with contract betweel\ anll said rajlway company, paid to said treaaurer of said
KEITaSBURGBRIDGE CO. fl. M'KAY.
429,
county on the Blst day of March, 1888, one-half of said tax, viz., twenty·four, hundred fifty.two dollars and fifty cents, ($2,452.50;) and the said receiver and the said brijlge company filed with and prt'sented to the said board of supervisurs a petition praying the cancellation of the said tax and assessment, and the refunding(>f the slim paid thereon, and the board of supervisors denied the prayer, and rejected the claim. "Fonrteenth. That no other assessment was made to the Keithsburg Bridge, Company for the year 1887 in Louisa county, Iowa. than as stated in this agreement;:ts aforesaid. . "And this agreement is made to save taking of testimony, and is to be l!sed in lieu thereof. "E.B. TUCKER, [Signed] "ARTHUR SPRINGER, i, Attys.
for Defts., the Board of Supervisors of· Louisa County, and McKay, Treasurer. C. DALY, for Complatnanls."
, From this statement of facts it appears that the bridge company owned in' 10,"a' po property other than that portion of its bridge lying within the limits bf"the state,including the approaches Under the' provIsions of the Code.of Iowa, railroad briqges a<lross the Mississippi, river ate ta.xable as realty belongillgto the bridge Code Iow:a; §808.· 'His admitted that the bridgeowlled stocks, and its' own shares could not be taxed to itself. The assessment, therefore,against' the company, made by the county auditor, of $180,000 of personal property, had no foundation in fact to rest upon. It is not a mistake in the valuation of property; that is, an overassessment. It appears that the board of supervisors or the county, at its June session in 1887, discovered that there was no assessment made against the Keithsburg Bridge Company. Thereup.on the COUJ:lty auditor was directed to make an assessment thereof. The assessment was made as already stated, and is to be deemed to be the act of the auditor under the power granted ,to him byseetion 841,1 of the Code of Iowa. The difficulty is that the agreed statement of facts shows that there was no such property belong. ing to the bridge company as was assessed against it. It is that this assessment was made in fact after the lists had passed fromth3 assessor, and through the township board of equalization. No notice of the making thereof was in any manner actually given to complainant. Unless a court of equity can entertain jurisdiction to give relief, it follows that the complainant is assessed with a tax based upon an assessment Illl.1de in.form against it upon the assumption that it had personal property of the character named which in fact it never owned, and for \vhich it could not be properly taxed. 1 entertain no doubt that, under the facts shown in the stipulation signed by the parties, the case is one in which the interposition of the court can be invoked; otherwise, the party has had a tax assessed, against him without any opportunity, actual or constructive, to question its correctness. A party Calmot be subjected to a tax without his day in court, as the phrase iSi that is, some time taxbOQl(,. 1
Section 841 gives the county auditor power to correct any error in the assessment or .'. ' , . " . . . . .,'., ...,
REPORaJR,
vol. 42..::;:
and:trj.buDltl must beopel1to him wherein he may be heard for the pro'othis rights. ,Hlsuch opportunity is not afforded otherwise, then ,the is nothing shoulq I;l,ta'y:the a.ctIon court.m hIS behalf. The property of the complamant, to-Wit, thebpdge and Its approaches, so far are, within ,the ,boundaries of the state of Iowa, was property open to the knowledge of the county officials. It was not concealed nor hidden., The assessor neglected to assess it at the proper time. If the ab.ditdi'had'properly assessed the bridge, with notice, actual or conwould have, been valid; structive, to the complainant, such but instead of so doing the auditor made an assessment agninst complaina,nt of not owned by it, and now it is insisted that the latter should: be allowed to stand as the equivalent of the assessment that ought to have been made, but'which was not niade. 'fhis cannot be done. theass,essment in questi()n, and the ta;r:., based thereon, The Ipqst, held wholly voiG\, and the bridge company is entitled to a deand the ,removal of the; cloud caused qree' fo(tbe its the right to,recover back of the tax ,Pl1-1P, ,by Iowa Central ltailway Company is not presented ju,' the and is not considered or determined by the co.qrt." ,, ,' ;;:'1,
WEsT "'. DUNCAN
et at
OO'Urt,S.'ri. MUBi8sippt, S. D. August 20, 1889.) L TAXA'MON-S1l'iTTO SET AstDii TAX-DEED-PutTIES. In. in a!lide a deed from tax c?llector, of land sold for of taxes, on tne ground that complamant, Within 12 months after the deed was:fiJ.ed ·for reeonWtendered to the purchaser all taxes,dllmages, interest, and '*lstB,an!l:because the ,tax collector failed before the sale,to,publish a list of the land as reqUired b)r .law, and further on the ground that, at the time of th6Sale,'J. eomplllinant ha,d" 'S,UftiCient'per,'sonal, proP,erty , which it was the collector's ", J duty,to Il.fstexha\lst, the not a proper party. ' ' 2.SAME."
. ',' "Wheretlle suit is also to 'set aSide a sUbsequent'deed' from 'the 'purchaser at the ,i .taxllale, such, purchaser, is,a necessary party. 8, SAl\IB-..Tu-.SALE· ' ' " It is '!l\)t necl!ssary in Mississippi that the tax collector, before selling land for delJ linquent taXes, shall fil"st:el4liBust the personal property of the delinquent. , 'laf
4,
5.
Section of thecharwr ,of Pass Christian, in Mississippi, as amended by the act Itl86iprovil'll'ng that'fn/lalell for taxes all presumptions of law shall be In favor , of been Ilone by the officer, previous to, and, in making the saie, to comulUnh;ate a good title to the purchaser, and the salEl and title acquired shall only ,be Bet ,aside 'on satilsfaetory'proof that the taxes for which the land was Bold were NI'Uy P,a,idb, .IIale, Dotpreven,t the OWner O"f land Bold for taxes from' Bt,ling t!> set the aside, 00. the gr0\lrnd that the t!lJI: collector failed to pliblillli" a list, Of tile delinquent land as requh'eti 'by law. ' lWti,
OF
Such charter provides that within three days after the sale the tax collector shall execute an,d deliver to the purchaser a deed COnVeYing, the land to him, and providl.og :for ita at any time within 12 months ;from the day of sale. Tax-deeds are required to be flied for record with the clerk or other officer.
T.u:-D&EDji,
"J'
·
