O'Connell v. Shontz
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.— HoN. F. E. Gaynok, Judge. The petition alleges: That, at tbe tim.e of the transaction complained of, the defendant Shontz was employed by the county to discover property omitted from the tax lists, Magoun was treasurer, and Jenness was auditor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.— HoN. F. E. Gaynok, Judge. The petition alleges: That, at tbe tim.e of the transaction complained of, the defendant Shontz was employed by the county to discover property omitted from the tax lists, Magoun was treasurer, and Jenness was auditor. That these three, “ contriving and intending to injure and defame the plaintiff,” maliciously composed and mailed her a notice that the officers had been apprised that moneys and credits to the amount of $2,800 belonging to' plaintiff had been omitted from taxation for the year 1903, and requiring her to appear…
1Opinion of the Court
Ladd, J.—
The notice sent to the plaintiff was in strict conformity with sections 1374 and 1385 of the Code, as amended by chapters 47 and 50, pages 31 and 33, of the Twenty-Eighth General Assembly. It was such a notice as the law authorized “whenever property subject to taxation is withheld, overlooked or from any other cause is not listed or assessed.” Even though defendants' so intended, it did not purport to state the reason for the omission; and there is no ground for saying that it contained, directly or by implication, a charge of cheating and defrauding the state and country, or of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hollenbeck v. RistineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. HuffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915