Court Opinion

ID: 9693235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:31:28.493001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:30.220151
License: Public Domain

Wennerstrum, J.
(dissenting) — I am unable to join in the majority opinion and therefore respectfully dissent. I am conscious of the fact there is court made law which supports the majority holding but there is basis, in my opinion, for a contrary conclusion.
The portion of Code section 391.89, 1954 Code of Iowa, which is here involved is as follows: “Said appeal must be perfected: By serving upon the mayor or clerk, in the manner in which original notices in ordinary actions are served, within fifteen days from the date of said levy, a written notice of appeal, signed by the plaintiff or by his agent or attorney, directed to the defendant, and designating with reasonable certainty the assessment appealed from and the property of plaintiff affected thereby, and * * (Italics supplied.)
From a consideration of the briefs of the respective parties and the trial court’s ruling it is apparent the court’s determina*1363tion of the issue before it was based on the failure of the plaintiff to incorporate at the beginning of the notice a salutation as follows: “To the Town of Salix, Iowa.” It is the conclusion of the writer of this dissent such a heading or salutation was not necessary under the circumstances hereinafter stated. The heading of the notice of appeal is set out in the majority opinion which we shall not repeat. The body of the notice is here noted:
“You are Hereby Notified that the plaintiffs Joseph Harrington and Ignatius Harrington as owners of Lot 7 and the plaintiffs Ignatius Harrington and Theresa Harrington as owners of Lots 5, 6 and 8, all in Block 8, First Addition to the Town of Salix, Iowa, do hereby appeal from the action of the Town Council of Salix, Iowa, in overruling objections of these plaintiffs to the assessments against these plaintiffs’ property and in making, levying and confirming the assessments against said property for the installation of concrete curb and gutter on Tipton, Maple and Travis Streets in Salix, Iowa, .said assessments having been in the following amounts: * * * [describing properties and assessments],
“You are Further Notified that the petition of the said plaintiffs will be on file in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the State of Iowa, in and for Woodbury County, at Sioux City, Iowa, on or before noon of the second day of the January, 1957 term of Court, to all of which take due notice and govern yourself accordingly.
“Dated this 20th day of December, 1956.
/S/ McCormicK & McCormick McCormick & McCormick Attorneys for Plaintiffs 604 Security Bank Building Sioux City, Iowa.”
The names of the appealing parties are listed as plaintiffs in the heading of the notice and the Town of Salix is noted as defendant. In the body of the notice it is definitely stated the plaintiffs are appealing by reason of an assessment made against their properties by the Town of Salix. It seems to this writer the notice was plainly shown to be directed to the defendant. It could not be otherwise. The defendant-town was fully advised *1364regarding the purpose of the notice and to add “to the Town of Salix, Iowa” would not give to tbe defendant any greater information than if such salutation was not included. To deny to the plaintiffs the right of appeal under the circumstances is not in keeping with the spirit of the statute here involved and is not in keeping with the claim made by courts generally that they seek to arise above mere technicalities. If our prior authorities support the majority opinion it is time this court changed such an extreme court made law. I would reverse.