Mitchell v. Charles City Western Railway

169 Iowa 237
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedSeptember 29, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 169 Iowa 237 (Mitchell v. Charles City Western Railway) 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.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. Charles City Western Railway, 169 Iowa 237 (iowa 1914).

Opinion

DeemeR, J.

Prior to the happening of the matters complained of, the Charles City Western Railway owned and operated a steam railway from Marble Rock to Charles City, a distance of approximately 13 miles, and in the fall of the year 1913, it concluded to electrify this line, and to extend its road northeasterly from Charles City some nine or ten miles to the county line. Desirous of obtaining aid by taxation for the making of these improvements, it secured and presented a petition to the board of supervisors, to submit the matter to a vote of the residents of a district created by the petitioners. Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the board of supervisors called an election by the residents and prepared a ballot for the election formulated from the petition, and at the election called for the purpose the proposition was declared carried, and the board was about to certify the tax when plaintiffs, who are resident landowners and taxpayers within the district, commenced this action to enjoin the levy and collection of the tax.

The propositions relied upon to defeat the tax are something like sixteen in number; but they revolve around a few central propositions which may be stated as follows:

(a) The petition for the tax and the proposition stated in the ballots was not a single one, but dual in character, and [240]*240so worded that an elector would have to vote for or against both, although he might have desired to vote affirmatively on one and negatively on the other.

(b) The propositions themselves were uncertain and insufficient in that they did not state the amount of money required for electrifying the old road and for the construction of the new line.

(c) The propositions were inadequate and insufficient in that they did not state what part of the new line should be constructed and what part of the old electrified before the tax was collected.

(d) The legislature had no power to authorize the establishment of taxing districts for voting aid to steam or interurban railways.

(e) The property in the proposed district was not classified according to benefits, and the tax was not uniform or according to benefits received.

(f) Not all the property benefited was included within the district.

(g) The provisions of 35 G. A., Ch. 169, if construed as contended for by appellants, are unconstitutional and void.

1. Taxation : statutes: tax aid to railways : strict construction. Appellees’ first contention in support of the decree of the trial court is that, as the statutes under which the proceedings were instituted are in derogation of the common law, and impose a tax upon property owners, or some of them, without their consent, they are to be construed most strongly against the railway company. This contention is sound, of course, and the rule will not be lost sight of during the course of this opinion.

As the statute under which the defendant proceeded is new, and has never received a construction by this court, we quote therefrom as follows: '

“Sec. 1. Taxes not exceeding five per. cent on the assessed value of the real property of any district or territory contigu[241]*241cus to any projected trolley or electric railroad, or to any steam railroad which it is proposed to electrify, may be levied to aid in the construction of such projected trolley or electric railroad, or in the electrification of such steam railroad, within the state, as hereinafter provided.
“See. 2. "When it is proposed to construct any trolley or electric railroad, or to electrify any steam railroad, and a petition definitely describing any district or territory contiguous to and within five miles of the line of such railroad or proposed railroad, signed by a majority of the resident freehold taxpayers, of such district or territory, asking that the question of aiding in the construction or electrification of such railroad or proposed railroad within such district or territory, be submitted to the voters thereof, is presented to the board of supervisors of the county in which such district or territory is situated, it shall be the duty of such board of supervisors immediately to give notice of a special election by publication in some newspaper published in such district or territory, if any there be, and if not, then in some newspaper published in the county, and also by posting .copies of said notices in five public places in such district or territory at least ten days before such election, which shall state the time and place of holding the same, the name of the company and the line of the road proposed to be added, the rate per cent of the tax to be levied; whether one-half thereof shall be collected the first year and one-half the following year, or whether the whole is to be collected in one year, the amount of work required to be done, and when and where the same shall be done, to what point said railroad shall be fully completed, and any other conditions which shall be performed before such tax or any part thereof shall become due, and in no case shall such tax become due until such railroad is fully completed according to the conditions of said notice. The board of supervisors shall cause to be prepared the form of the proposition to be submitted, and the proposition shall be printed and placed upon the ballots, and the board of supervisors [242]*242shall appoint the judges and clerks of election, and the election shall be conducted in the same manner as provided with respect to like or similar propositions in the chapter on elections, and the judges of election shall canvass the vote and make return to the county auditor, and if a majority of the votes polled be for the adoption of the proposition, then the county auditor shall forthwith certify to the result thereof, rate per cent of the tax voted, the year or years during which the same is to be collected, the name of the company to which voted, and the time, terms and conditions upon which the same when collected is to be paid under the conditions and stipulations in said notice, together with an exact copy of the notice under which the election was held, which the county auditor shall at once cause to be recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds. The expense thereof and of publishing the notice and all the expenses of the election shall be paid by the railway company to which it is proposed to vote the tax. "When such certificate-has been made and recorded the board of supervisors of the county shall'at the time of levying the ordinary tax next following, levy such taxes as are voted under the provisions hereof as shown by said certificate, and cause the same to be placed on the tax lists of the proper township, town or'city, indicating in their order thereupon when and in what proportion the same are to be collected, and upon what conditions the same are to be paid to the railway company, a certified copy of which shall accompany the tax list. The taxes shall be collected at the time or times specified in the order and in the same manner and subject to the same laws after they are collectible as other taxes, or as may be stated in the petition and notice for the election, except as otherwise provided; provided however, that such tax shall only be levied upon the real property within such district or territory. The stipulations and conditions in the notice prescribed in this section must conform to those set forth in the petition asking for the election, and the aggregate amount of taxes [243]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neal v. Board of Supervisors, Clarke County
53 N.W.2d 147 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1952)
Lahn v. Primghar
281 N.W. 214 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 Iowa 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-charles-city-western-railway-iowa-1914.