Illinois Central R'y Co. v. Hamilton County
This text of 73 Iowa 313 (Illinois Central R'y Co. v. Hamilton County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There is included within the corporate limits of Webster City a large amount of agricultural lands 'which are not subject to taxation for general city purposes. Plaintiff’s railroad extends through the corporate limits of the city for about five miles. Only about one mile of the main trade, however, lies within that portion of the territory which is subdivided into blocks and lots. Plaintiff was taxed for general city purposes on a valuation which was determined by multiplying the valuation per mile, as fixed by the executive council, upon the main track by the number of miles of track' within the corporate limits. It denied that it was subject to taxation for city purposes in that portion of the track which is outside of the subdivided territory, and it paid a part of the tax which bears the same proportion to the' whole amount thereof as the portion of the track within the subdivided territory bears to the number of miles within the corporate limits, and brought this action to restrain the collection of the remainder.
The effect of these provisions is plain. By them the valuation upon which the. railroad company is to be taxed within any city or other corporation or taxing district is to be determined from the number of miles of main track within the corporation or district, as determined by the order of' the board of supervisors, and the valuation per mile, as fixed by the executive council. No other basis is provided for deter[316]*316mining the valuation of the property for purposes of taxation. The scheme or plan of the statute is to treat the property, although it may consist of many distinct parcels or tracts of real estate, and many articles of personalty, as an entirety, and assess it as such; and, as the owner is subject to taxation for local purposes, the values upon which such taxes shall be levied are arrived at by taking for those purposes a proportion of the aggregate valuation corresponding with that which the property lying within the corporation or taxing district bears to the whole property assessed. The order of the board of supervisors determining the number of miles of track within the cities, incorporated towns and taxing districts is not in any sense an assessment or valuation of those portions of the property;1 but its office is to fix the proportion of the aggregate assessment or valuation made by the executive council, which shall be subject to the local taxes levied by the corporations or districts. The provisions of the. statute, exempting agricultural and horticultural lands lying within the limits of incorporated towns and cities from taxation for city purposes, have no application to property of this character. Nor does the case involve the grounds upon which it has been held that lands so situated could not be subject to such taxation, which are that the lands are in no manner benefited or protected by the city government. (See Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82.) For, as we have seen, the statute does not provide for the assessment of outside property for taxation within the city7, but establishes merely a rule by which may be determined the proportion of the aggregate assessment upon which the company shall be taxed for local purposes.
. Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 Iowa 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-central-ry-co-v-hamilton-county-iowa-1887.