140 Iowa 718 | Iowa | 1909
— Plaintiff is a taxpayer of the independent school district of Sioux City. He brought this action on behalf of himself and other taxpayers similarly situated. The defendant is the county treasurer. The independent school district of Sioux City is also a party to the case as an intervener.
The board of directors of the independent school district of Sioux City, acting under the provisions of section 2806 of the Code, made its estimates of the amount required for school purposes, and caused the same to be certified to the board of supervisors. This estimate was as follows:
Eor teachers’ fund.......................$110,000 00
Eor contingent fund...................... 65,000 00
Eor school house fund.................... 85,000 00
$260,000 00
The last item included $60,000, which had been voted by the electors of the independent school district for the purpose of new buildings and for the payment of a judgment against the district.
For teachers’ fund..........................17 mills.
For contingent fund.................... 10 mills.
For schoolhouse fund........................13 mills.
The assessed valuation of the. property of the district for that year was $6,942,437. The rate of levy adopted by the board of supervisors applied to such assessed valuation would create a tax as follows:
17 mills $118,021 43 For teachers’ fund..
10 “ 69,424 37 For contingent fund.
13 “ 90,251 68 For schoolhouse fund
$277,697 48
This presents an excess over the estimates of $8,021.43 on teachers’ fund; $4,424.37 on contingent fund; $5,251.68 on schoolhouse fund.
The contention of appellant is that the board had no authority to levy this excess, and that, because it so transcended its authority, the whole levy was rendered void; and, if the whole levy was not void, at least the excess should be so regarded. Upon the hearing it was proved that in the history of that district the full amount of tax levied on the assessed valuation was never realized in fact. In order to realize a stated amount for expenditures, it was necessary that a larger amount should be provided for in the rate actually levied. This is accounted for in various ways. A certain amount of tax on personal property is lost by the removal of taxpayers after assessment and before the collection of the tax, fifteen months later. Other taxpayers become insolvent. Exemptions are claimed and allowed after assessment. Rebates are claimed and allowed for error in
Tbe order of tbe lower court is therefore affirmed.