Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1862-05-30
D. G. Cloud,

us. In Muscatine District
City of Muscatine, Court, May term, 1862.
The sole question to be determined in this
case is whether the plaintiffs property is lla'
BILE to, or exempt from city taxes The rules
and principles governing this class Of cases
have been very fully discussed by the Su-
preme Court, in two cases appealed from this
county, Morierd Us. Unger, 8 Iowa Rep: IS,
and Butler Us. City Of Muscatine, ii Iowa,
433. In the former case the property was
held to be exempt from, and in the latter case
it was held to be liable to, municipal taxation.
These two decisions are perfectly accordant.
cannot understand the latter case as In any
degree receding from or modifying the former
one. All that this Court has to do 10 the case
at the bar, is to determine under which class
of cases it properly falls. And upon atten.
lively considering the agreed statement OF
facts respecting the situation, location ana
character of the plaintiffs property, the
Court is very clearly of opinion that his case
is within that of Morlord us Unger.
The property of the plaintiff Clouds
situated within the new limits, but is distant
three.fourths of mile from the old city linn
it's. At least one half mile of this distance is
vet in a state of nature, there being no enclo'
sures or improvements of any kind upon it,
and it has never been laid out into lots. The
D. aintiff's tract consists of about four and
half acres, and is enclosed and occupied by
him. The eighty acre tract, OF which the
plaintiffs tract is part, is bounded on the
East by wild land, on the North by wild land,
on the West partly by vacant and partly by
improved land, and on the South by the
farm of Thomas Murford, being the same that
was sought to be taxed in the case OF Nor
ford vs. Unger. In point of locality, then
there is no substantial difference between the
present case and that of Morford, which wal
determined adversely to the city. If therefort
the plaintiff property is taxable by the city
it must be because it is de fact0 part Of the
CITY, or because of the use it is put to. or be
cause it has been made part of the city by
the net of the owners. The agreed state
ment of facts shows that it is used, not TO
business purposes as was the case in Butle
cs. The City of Muscatine, but "for agricultu
raj. horticultural and floral purposes" III
city in maintaining that the property in ques
ton is subject to taxation, relies mainly upo1
the fact that the eighty acre tract compris'n
: the plaintiffs lot was laid out into lots vary
f ing in size from two to thirteen acres. fror
ting on the Muscatine and Iowa City roat
and that many of these lots are occupied
But it is agreed that these lots were not lai
off or recorded as part of the city, nor wa
q any plat of the same ever made, save as tn
Z same was sold to different persons. 1t
, not laid off into blocks, streets and alleys 9
is universally the case in towns and cite
e It is not connected by streets with the cit
Of Muscatine proper, nor as in the case
9 Butler vs. The City, is the ground beyor
aid out into lots and streets. There is not
ing to show that the growth of the city
Muscatine is such, and the wants of the pu
e lie such, that either the land of the plant
10 or the large intervening tracts Of vacant Ian
=. fare required for streets or houses or 9th
purposes" Of the city.
10 On the whole case, being satisfied that Il
c plaintiff property is of such character al
or is SO situated as to be beyond the reach Of Il
ye benefits designed to be conferred by the 60
~ eminent Of the city, am of opinion that
:" should not be subjected to the burdens Of t
ve local government,
o. JOHN F. DILLON, Judge.