Lennemann v. Harlan County
Lennemann v. Harlan County
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff appeals from judgment of the district court
Only one question is presented: Is the action properly brought under subdivision 1, sec. 6491, Rev. St. 1913 (■Comp. St. 1922, sec. 6018), against the county, or should it have been brought under subdivision 2 against the township? So far as material to our present inquiry the provisions are as follows:
“First. If such person claim a tax, or any part thereof, to be invalid for the reason that the property upon which it is levied was not liable for taxation, or that the property has been twice assessed, * * * he may pay such taxes under protest” — and recover the same from the county.
“Second. If such person claim the tax, or any part thereof, to be invalid for the reason that it was levied or assessed for an illegal or unauthorized purpose, or for any other reason except as hereinbefore set forth, when he shall have paid the same to the treasurer, or other proper authority” — he may recover the same from the county, city, village, township, district, or other subdivision, for the benefit or under the authority or by the request of which the same was levied.
In Darr v. Dawson County, 93 Neb. 93, we held that the remedy provided by the first subdivision is available only when the property was wrongfully assessed, either because exempt from taxation or because the tax levied had already been assessed thereon and paid. This case was followed in Janike v. Butler County, 103 Neb. 865.
We are of opinion that the action should have been brought against the township of Orleans, and that the judgment of the lower court in sustaining the demurrer was correct,' and it is
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Anton Lennemann v. Harlan County
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published