130 Iowa 463 | Iowa | 1905
In the year 1903 one Mrs. E. E. A. Stevens was, and for some time had been, a resident of Linn county, Iowa. In July of the year mentioned, the defendant herein, being the then county treasurer of Linn county, claiming that Mrs. Stevens was chargeable with certain taxes upon property, moneys, and credits which had been omitted from assessment, proceeded .to list said property, and assess thereon taxes for the years 1901 and 1902, to the amount of $338.55. On August 6, 1903, Mrs. Stevens paid said taxes, making at the same time a written protest that she had already paid her taxes in full for the years named, and that the assessment, of additional taxes by the treasurer was unwarranted gnd oppressive. Thereafter the plaintiff herein took a written assignment of the claim of Mrs. Stevens, and instituted this action at law to recover as damages the amount of money so paid by her, with interest. The petition alleges the facts above stated, and avers that defendant, in making the assessment and the collection of said tax, acted “unlawfully, willfully, maliciously, oppressively, and tortiously.” The defendant demurred to the petition, on the ground (stated in substance) that the petition shows upon its face that he was acting within the forms of the law in such cases made and provided, and, if for any reason the assessment made by him was unjust or unauthorized, the remedy of Mrs. Stevens was by appeal, and that, having voluntarily waived her right of appeal and paid the tax, she cannot recover the money in a collateral or independent proceeding. The district court having sustained the demurrer the plaintiff appeals.
It should also be said that, while the petition alleges in a general way that Mrs. Stevens had paid the taxes upon her property for the years in question, it does not allege that such taxes were paid to the defendant or to Linn county, and it goes without saying that the listing and taxation of the moneys and credits in another jurisdiction would not necessarily affect the liability of the owner thereof to pay the tax here in controversy.
The ruling upon the demurrer was correct, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.