68 Iowa 691 | Iowa | 1886
Much has been said in argument respecting the constitutionality of section 4, c. 47, Laws 1876. That is a statute exempting tracts of land laid off into lots of a certain size
Reversed.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION.
The counsel for the plaintiff have filed a petition for a rehearing in this case. They claim that we. misunderstood their position, and very charitably attribute the misunderstanding to the fact that the case was presented only through what théy call “ cold type,” and they express the hope that a different method of trial in this court may soon be adopted. We do not know what method would give the counsel greater facility than they now enjoy. Oral arguments have always been allowable whenever counsel have desired to make them, and none have availed themselves more frequently of the privilege of' making them than the counsel for the plaintiff, who are looking with hope to a change of method. We desire to say, further, that, notwitln standing this case was not presented by oral argument, we do not fail to understand the counsel. Their printed argument was entirely intelligible, and was read and considered by us fully.
This action was brought to recover for certain taxes paid on city lots. The ground of recovery set out in the petition is that in a former action between- the same parties it was held that the lots are not subject to taxation. The counsel
Overruled.