Case ID: iowa_69/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NoTnRocK, J.-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson & Co. v. Cass County et al.
    •1. Taxation: separate assessment op nursery stock and land: error without damage: injunction. Nursery stock growing upon land is part of the realty, and should he assessed with the land; hut where hy a misconception it was assessed as personalty, hut the rate of taxation on personalty and realty was the same, the owner was not damaged hy the error; and an injunction to restrain the collection of the tax on the stock was properly refused.
    
      Appeal from Cass District Court.
    Wendesday, June 16.
    The plaintiff’s are the owners of certain land, upon which they maintain, cultivate and carry on a general nursery business. The nursery stock, consisting of plants and trees in process of growth,-was assessed for the year 1885 by the township assessor as personal property. At the same time the real estate whereon said nursery stock was situated and growing'was assessed for taxation at its fair and reasonable value. The plaintiffs seek by this action to enjoin the defendants from levying and collecting any taxes upon the assessment of the nursery stock. The petition of the plaintiffs sets forth the above facts in substance. There was a demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal.
    
      James B. Bruff, for appellants.
    
      John W. Scott, for appellees.
   NoTnRocK, J.-

The nursery stock was not personal propperty. It was part of the realty. Price v. Brayton, 19 Iowa, 309; Adams v. Beadle, 47 Id., 439. The assessor should have made but one estimate of the value of the land and nursery stock. It was an error to make separate assessments. • But we are unable to see how the plaintiffs ■were prejudiced by the error." The rate.of taxation on real and personal property is the same, and it is not to be presumed that the valuation placed on the land included the value of the nursery. It was merely a valuation in two parts, instead of an aggregate valuation, and, if there was any object in making a correction, application should have been made to the board of equalization. Macklot v. City of Davenport 17 Iowa, 379; Nugent v. Bates, 51 Id., 77; Powers v. Bowman, 53 Id., 359; Leonard v. Madison Co., 64 Iowa, 418.

The demurrer to the petition was correctly sustained.

Affirmed.