Wilson & Co. v. Cass County

28 N.W. 483, 69 Iowa 147
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 16, 1886·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

NoTnRocK, J.-

The nursery stock was not personal propperty. It was part of the realty. Price v. Brayton, 19 Iowa, 309; Adams v. Beadle, 47 Id., 439. The assessor should have made but one estimate of the value of the land and nursery stock. It was an error to make separate assessments. • But we are unable to see how the plaintiffs ■were prejudiced by the error." The rate.of taxation on real [148] and personal property is the same, and it is not to be presumed that the valuation placed on the land included the value of the nursery. It was merely a valuation in two parts, instead of an aggregate valuation, and, if there was any object in making a correction, application should have been made to the board of equalization. Macklot v. City of Davenport 17 Iowa, 379; Nugent v. Bates, 51 Id., 77; Powers v. Bowman, 53 Id., 359; Leonard v. Madison Co., 64 Iowa, 418.

The demurrer to the petition was correctly sustained.

Affirmed.

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

Wilson & Co. v. Cass County, 28 N.W. 483, 69 Iowa 147 (iowa 1886).

28 N.W. 483 (Wilson & Co. v. Cass County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Paine v. Assessors of Weston
7 N.E.2d 584 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Griswold Land & Credit Co. v. County of Calhoun
198 Iowa 1240 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
State v. Jemez Land Co.
226 P. 890 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1924)
French v. Lyme
86 A. 823 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1913)
Wahkonsa Investment Co. v. City of Ft. Dodge
125 Iowa 148 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Crawford v. Polk County
83 N.W. 825 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
Smith v. McQuiston
79 N.W. 130 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
Ledoux v. La Bee
83 F. 761 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota, 1897)
Robbins v. Magoun
70 N.W. 700 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)