Case Name: Mrs. A. M. Rivers, Appellee, v. City of Des Moines, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1926-12-14
Citations: 202 Iowa 940
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mrs. A. M. Rivers, Appellee, v. City of Des Moines, Appellant.
Judges: Evans, Vermilion, and Morling, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 940–942

Head Matter:
Mrs. A. M. Rivers, Appellee, v. City of Des Moines, Appellant.
December 14, 1926.
John J. Halloran, Beson S. Jones, Cha/imcey A. Weaver, and Paul Hewitt, for appellant.
Stipp, Perry, Bannister & Starsinger, for appellee.

Opinion:
AlbeRt, J.
By regular proceedings, the city of Des Moines paved Keosauqua Way, and in due time, and after proper notice, on January 22,1925, approved the schedule of assessment against the various properties. Appellee, having filed objection to such assessment, which was over-nruled, appealed to the district court, where the assessment against her property was canceled and set aside, and the property relieved from all liens on account of said assessment.
The city having appealed, the first question raised by it is that, when the appeal was taken by this property owner to the district court, and she filed an appeal bond with the clerk thereof, which was introduced in evidence, it did not bear the written approval of the clerk of the district court; and the city urges that the appeal was not effected, because the clerk did not indorse his approval upon said bond. The evidence in the case shows, however, that the attorney in charge of this'property owner's appeal presented the bond to the clerk, and the clerk told him he would approve it, but did not note his approval on the bond. This seems to be one of a series of cases of similar character to that of Bates v. City of Des Moines, 201 Iowa 1233, where this identical question was raised, under a similar record. In the Bates case we held, in substance, that, if the evidence showed that the clerk of the district court did in fact approve said bond, it was sufficient to support the appeal, even though he did not indorse his approval thereon in writing. We have no disposition to recede from our ruling in the Bates case, but, in addition to the authorities there cited, the following support the rule there announced: Davidson v. Lanier, 71 U. S. 447 (18 L. Ed. 377) ; Silver v. Ladd, 73 U. S. 440 (18 L. Ed. 828); International & G. N. R. Co. v. Taylor, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 455 (131 S. W. 620); Williams v. McConico, 25 Ala. 538; Commerce Vault v. Hurd, 73 Ill. App. 107; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 40 Ill. 35; McCloskey v. Indian apolis Manufacturers & Carpenters Union, 87 Ind. 20; Bowles v. Page, 20 Wis. 326.
The question of the sufficiency of the objections filed before the city council and the right to amend the same is again urged and discussed. We disposed of that question also in the Bates case, supra, where we said that the assessment was void because there was no authority or jurisdiction of the city to make the assessment, and that, therefore, no objections whatever need be filed, and that it may be annulled on appeal, as well as on an independent suit in equity.
No other questions are urged or discussed in this appeal, and the ruling of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.—Affirmed.
Evans, Vermilion, and Morling, JJ., concur.