— This is аn action in mandamus, brought jointly by the Griswold Land & Credit Company of Manson,Iowa, and its stockholders,' against the board of supervisors and county treasurer, respectively, of Calhoun County, to compel a refund of certain taxes alleged to have been erroneously and illegally exacted of appellants by the county treasurer. A demurrer to the petition was sustained; and, plaintiffs electing to stand thereon and refusing to plead further, the petition was dismissed, and judgment entered against them for costs. The action is bottomed upon Section 1417 of the Code of 1897, and it is alleged in the petition that the Griswold Land & Credit Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Iowa, engaged in the loan and .investment business; that it does not
The grounds of the demurrer are that the taxes for the years 1915 to 1917, inclusive, were barred by the statute of limitations, and that the appellants had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by appeal from the board of review, and, therefore, that the court ivas without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.
It is the duty of the county auditor to “furnish to each assessor a supply of blank assessment rolls, on which to enter, separately, the names of all persons, partnerships, corporations or associations assessed, which rolls shall be made in duplicate, and separated by a perforated line, * * *. Said duplicate shall be signed by the assessor, detached from the original, and delivered to the person assessed.” Section 1360, Code of 1897.
It is the duty of the assessor to list every рerson in his assessing district and assess all of the property, personal and real, therein, not exempt from taxation or otherwise assessed. Section 1354, Code of 1897.
The board of review in cities and towns is the city council. In case thе assessed value of any specific property or the entire assessment of any person, partnership, or corporation is raised, or new property added by the board of review, notice shall be given thereof, and time allowed within which, complaint may be made before that tribunal. Section 1372, Code of 1897.
Any person aggrieved by the action of the assessor in assessing his .property may complain orally or in writing to the board of review, and if relief is not granted by. such board, may appeal to the district court. Section 1373, Code of 1897.
The provisions herein referred to will be found in Chapters 342 and 343 of the Code of 1924.
Section 1417, so far as material to the matters involved in this controversy, is as follows:
“The board of suрervisors shall direct the treasurer to refund to the taxpayer any tax or portion thereof found to have been erroneously or illegally exacted or paid, with all interest and costs actually paid thereon.”
It thus appears that the authority of the board of review is plenary to correct errors in the classification and assessment of property and to increase or diminish the valuation fixed, by the assessor. A tribunal having' been created by the legislature and invested with power to hear certain complaints and grievances in the listing and assessment of property, its jurisdiction in all such matters is exclusive of all other remedies allowed by law, except as hereafter shown. Macklot v. City of Davenport,
The failure of a persоn aggrieved by the assessment of his property to appear before the board of review and make complaint waives his right to subsequently complain of any irregularity in the listing and assessment thereof. Dickey v. County of Polk,
The jurisdiction of the board of supervisors to order a refund of taxes paid is limited to such as have been erroneously or illegally exacted by the cоunty treasurer. It is conceded by counsel for appellees that mandamus to compel the board of supervisors to order a refund is the proper remedy, under Section 1417. In view of the conclusion reached, we shall, for the purрoses of this ease, assume that the shares of stock of the Griswuld Land & Credit Company should have been assessed as moneys and credits, and not as personalty.
The real nub of the controversy is the right of appellants, under the facts admitted by thе demurrer, to relief under Section 1417. The question, therefore, is: What is meant by taxes found to have been erroneously or illegally exacted or paid, within the terms of this statute? Was the remedy of appellants, of appearing before thе board of review with their grievances, and, upon failure to obtain relief, of appealing to the district court, exclusive of all others, or may they maintain the present action, notwithstanding' that the irregularity complained of could have been remedied by that tribunal? The word “erroneously” has no doubt been somewhat loosely used by this court, particularly in some of its’ early decisions.
Let us noiv briefly review the decisions of this court relied upon by appellants. The action in Lauman v. Des Moines County, supra, was in mandamus, to compel the county treasurer to refund certain taxes paid on fifty shares of national bank stock. The court found that the tax was levied without authority of laAv, and that, therefore, there was neither legal right nor poAver to collect same, and, upon this ground, held
It will thus be seen that the tax involved in each of the above cases was either assessed and levied without аuthority, or upon property that was not taxable, or under a statute subsequently declared to be void, or by officers having no authority whatever to do the act complained of. McPherson v. Foster Bros.,
The board of supervisors is not a taxing body. It has no authority tо increase or diminish the valuation of property returned to the board of review by the assessor in the various assessing districts. The distinction to be observed between the power of the board of review and the power of the board of supervisors is pointed out in Dickey v. Polk County, supra.
“If a taxpayer, by failing to pursue a remedy for the correction of irregularities .in the assessment and levy of taxes, waives or loses his right to resist the collection of the taxes, the exaction of payment by the treasurer is not illegal or erroneous. The irregularities having been waived, the assessment stands upon the tax books to be lawfully exacted, and their collection enforced by the treasurer. In that case, it could not be found that they were ‘еrroneously dr illegally exacted or paid.’ Thus an assessment which, for certain reasons, is held to be erroneous, must be corrected upon application to the board of equalization; if that remedy is not pursued, the tax may be cоllected. Macklot v. City of Davenport,
We further said, in Van Wagenen v. Supervisors of Lyon County, that:
“If a person pays taxes without availing himself of the remedy provided by law, it cannot be regarded as an illegal exaction, provided the power and jurisdiction existed to make the assessment and levy.”
As tending to sustain the holding of the above eases, particular attention is called to Eyerly v. Jasper County, supra; Harris v. Fremont County, supra; Nugent v. Bates, supra; Crawford v. Polk County, supra; Leonard v. Madison County,
The rule to be deduced from the various provisions of the statute and the decisions of this court is that, unless the tax is illegal because levied without statutory authority, or levied upon property not subject to taxation, or by some officer or officers having no authority to levy the same, or is in some other similar respect illegal, the exclusive remedy of the taxpayer is to complain to the board of review, and, in the event that he is denied relief, then to appeal to the district court. Of course, the board of review has jurisdiction to grant relief to the party aggrieved, upon any of the grounds enumerated above. As to such or perhaps other similar grounds, its jurisdictiоn is not exclusive. In all other matters, it is.
The fundamental complaint of the appellants is that the property was erroneously classified by the assessor and listed for taxation on the basis of banks and loan and trust companies, and not on thе basis of moneys and credits. All that remained was for the proper officers to apply the rate of taxation to the assessment on the basis shown by the return of the assessor. The tax exacted may have been irregular, and the rate оn the assumption stated above, higher than it should have been. The irregu
In the recent case of Steele v. Madison Cowity,
It is our conclusion that the remedy of appellants before the board of review was exclusive, and that the demurrer to the petition was properly sustained. — Affirmed.