| Iowa | Mar 11, 1887
The real estate in controversy is situate in the city of Des Moines. The defendants claim under a tax deed, and if it is valid this ends the controversy. ' v taxes °*’ 1876 being delinquent, the land was so^ *n 1877 for said taxes. The expiration notice under which the defendants claim the deed was executed was served by publication on J. L. Mitchell; the first publication being on August 18, 1880, and the last
The expiration notice was served, and deed executed, prior to the decision in Heaton v. Knight, 63 Iowa, 686" court="Iowa" date_filed="1883-09-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/heaton-v-knight-7101018?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7101018">63 Iowa, 686. Counsel for the appellees rely on that case, and insist that it is decisive of the question to be determined; and counsel for the appellant rely on the same case on rehearing, reported in 6o Iowa, 434. Considering these two opinions together, it is apparent that the only question decided was that during each odd-numbered year, when lands are assessed for the purposes of taxation, and dui’ing the time the assessor’s books are on file in the auditor’s office, and prior to the time the tax duplicate is made out and placed in the treasurer’s hands, the land must be regarded as taxed to the person named in the assess- or’s book. We did not determine what would be the rule if , there was a conflict between the assessment and tax duplicate.
The latter is the treasurer’s authority for the collection of taxes. To it all persons resort for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of their taxes, and upon what property they have been levied. When the tax duplicate is made out, and filed in the treasurer’s office, the assessment made by the assessor ceases to be of importance. The primary object of the assessment is to enable the board of supervisors to determine the rate per cent of the levy, and the auditor to make
There is another fact entitled to weight. The tax duplicate for 1880 is made up from the tax duplicate of 1879, and not from the assessment made in the latter year. The duplicate, therefore, of 1879, when made out and filed, took the place of the assessment; and, in making out the tax-list for that year, and also for the subsequent year, the auditor had the power to correct mistakes in the assessment. ( Code, § 841.) This necessarily includes the power to determine when a mistake has been made. Conway v. Yonkin, 28 Iowa, 295" court="Iowa" date_filed="1869-12-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/conway-v-younkin-7094434?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7094434">28 Iowa, 295; Parker v. Van Steenburg, 68 Id., 174.
The plaintiff offers in his petition to pay such amount as the court finds he should pay in order to redeem. This we think he should do; but, as the question as to the amount he should pay has not been discussed by counsel, we will not undertake to determine it.
For the reason that no expiration notice was served on the person in whose name the land was taxed, the judgment must be reversed, but the case will be remanded, with instruction to ascertain and determine the amount plaintiff should pay; and, when such payment is made, a judgment should be entered in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED.