State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann

• Decision Date: 10 June 1941
• Docket Number: 36994
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of the City of St. Louis, a Municipal Corporation, Relator, v. William F. Baumann, as Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

153 S.W.2d 31

348 Mo. 164

State of Missouri at the relation of the City of St. Louis, a Municipal Corporation, Relator, v. William F. Baumann, as Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis

No. 36994

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 10, 1941

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1941.

Peremptory writ issued.

Edgar H. Wayman and Francis Finley for relator.

(1) Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the collector to execute and deliver a deed. State ex rel. Crutcher v Koeln, 61 S.W.2d 750, 322 Mo. 1229; State ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Markway, 110 S.W.2d 1118, 341 Mo. 976; 38 C. J. 784. (2) The rule of strict construction as to tax exemption has no application to the property of municipal corporations. City of Laurel v. Weems, 100 Miss. 335, 56 So. 451, 31 Ann. Cas. 159. (3) General tax laws do not apply to the State or its municipal corporations. Art. X, Sec. 6, Mo. Const.; Sec. 9743, R. S. 1929; Van Brocklin v. State, 117 U.S. 151, 6 S.Ct. 670, 29 L.Ed. 845; Laret Inv. Co. v. Dickmann, 134 S.W.2d 65; State v. Snokomish County, 71 Wash. 320, 128 P. 667; Gachet v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 So. 348. (4) In acquiring property a municipality acquires it free from existing tax liens and exempt from taxes, and therefore the City of St. Louis is entitled to a collector's deed without paying taxes for the years 1914 to 1929. Art. X, Sec. 6, Mo. Const.; Sec. 9743, R. S. 1929; Laret Inv. Co. v. Dickmann, 134 S.W.2d 65; Laurel v. Weems, 100 Miss. 335, 56 So. 451, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 159; Foster v. Duluth, 120 Minn. 484, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 707, 140 N.W. 129; State v. Locke, 29 N.M. 148, 219 P. 790, 30 A. L. R. 407; Gachet v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 So. 348; Alvis v. Hicks, 50 Miss. 306, 116 So. 612; Lancaster County v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711. (5) The city is entitled to a collector's deed without paying taxes for the years 1937 to 1939, for when the city purchased the property in question and received the collector's certificate therefor the property became exempt from taxation. (a) When the city purchased the property and received the collector's certificate the city had an equitable title to the property. Curtis Land & Loan Co. v. Interior Land Co., 118 N.W. 853, 137 Wis. 341; Coe v. Manseau, 62 Wis. 81, 22 N.W. 155; Lessee of Rice v. Apollos White, 8 Ohio 216; Dolph v. Barney, 5 Ore. 191, affirmed 97 U.S. 652, 24 L.Ed. 1063; Eager v. Pugh, 253 P. 41, 123 Okla. 207; Wilson v. Wood, 10 Okla. 279, 61 P. 1045; Municipal Acceptance Corp. v. Canole 119 S.W.2d 820, 342 Mo. 1170. (b) The city holding equitable title to the property in question, held it exempt from taxation. Mo. Const., Sec. 6, Art. X; R. S. 1929, sec. 9743; 2 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), pp. 1419, 1420, sec. 677; Anne Arundel County Comrs. v. Mayor, etc., of Annapolis, 126 Md. 445, 95 A. 40; Wichita v. Anderson, 237 P. 1024, 119 Kan. 241. (2) Where a municipal corporation purchases lands for delinquent taxes it is unnecessary for it to pay any taxes. Lancaster County v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; Wichita v. Anderson, 237 P. 1024, 119 Kan. 241; Art. X, Sec. 6, Mo. Const.; Sec. 9743, R. S. 1929; Laret Inv. Co. v. Dickmann, 134 S.W.2d 65. (6) The Legislature, by the Laws of 1933, page 440, Section 9957-C, did not intend to ignore the constitutional exemption of municipalities, and this is made plain by Laws of 1939, page 850. Laws 1939, p. 850, sec. 1; Sec. 9953b, R. S. 1929, Annotated 1939 Pocket Part, p. 8000; Grand River Drain. Dist. v. Reid, 111 S.W.2d 151, 341 Mo. 1246.

James A. Waechter and Donald Gunn for respondent.

Relator city has not acquired, by virtue of the certificate of purchase, such an interest in the real estate in question as to bring it within relator's constitutional and statutory exemption from taxation. Laws 1933, p. 425; Donohue v. Veal, 19 Mo. 331; Kohle v. Hobson, 215 Mo. 213, 114 S.W. 952; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), p. 2934; In re Singer, 7 A. 800; Woodland Oil Co. v. Shoup, 107 Pa. St. 293; Keller v. Hawk, 19 Okla. 407, 91 P. 778; Wilson v. Matson, 177 P. 746; Douglas v. Dickson, 31 Kan. 310, 1 P. 541; Spratt v. Price, 18 Fla. 289; Boardman v. Boozewinkel, 121 Mich. 320; Stephens v. Holmes, 26 Ark. 48; State ex rel. Trust Co. v. Godfrey, 56 N.E. 482; Hibbard v. Brown, 51 Ala. 469; 2 Blackwell on Tax Titles, pp. 907, 912; Sec. 3014, R. S. 1929; St. Louis v. Wenneker, 145 Mo. 230, 47 S.W. 105; State ex rel. McKinney v. Davidson, 286 S.W. 355; Millerson v. Doherty, 241 S.W. 907; The People v. University of Ill., 328 Ill. 377, 159 N.E. 811.

George E. Woodruff, amicus curiae.

Douglas, J. All concur except Tipton and Hays, JJ., who dissent.

OPINION

DOUGLAS

This is an original action in mandamus brought by the City of St. Louis against its collector of revenue to compel him to make a deed conveying to the City certain land bought at a tax sale held under the provisions of the Jones-Munger Act of 1933. [Sec. 11117, R. S. 1939 et seq., Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 9945, p. 7988.] This act was applicable to the City only for a short period because in 1939 it was amended so as to take the city and counties of a certain population out of its provisions. [Sec. 11183, R. S. 1939, sec. 9952a-1, p. 7995 et seq.] But this controversy arose while the law was yet applicable to the City.

A proceeding in mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the action sought. [State ex rel. Crutcher v. Koeln, 332 Mo. 1229, 61 S.W.2d 750; State ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Markway, 341 Mo. 976, 110 S.W.2d 1118.]

The land involved is a city lot in St. Louis. It was advertised for sale because of taxes delinquent for 1930 to 1935. After being twice offered for sale in the two previous years with no bid, the lot was offered for sale the third time in 1937 and the City was the highest bidder for the sum of $ 80 and received a certificate of purchase to the lot. The two-year redemption period elapsed in 1939 without the lot being redeemed. Thereafter the City presented its certificate and demanded a deed from the collector under Sec. 11149, R. S. 1939, which provides: "If no person shall redeem the lands sold for taxes within two years from the sale, at the expiration thereof, and on production of certificate of purchase, . . . the collector of the county in which the sale of such lands took place shall execute to the purchaser, his heirs or assigns, in the name of the state, a conveyance of the real estate so sold, which shall vest in the grantee an absolute estate in fee simple, subject, however, to all claims thereon for unpaid taxes. . . ." The collector refused to execute a deed unless the City would first pay him (a) the sum of $ 812.71 for taxes due from 1914 to 1929 and (b) the sum of $ 178.14 for taxes due after 1937 and during the redemption period all under authority of Sec. 11152, R. S. 1939, which says that before a certificate-holder may apply for a deed he must pay all taxes which accrued prior to and since the issuance of the certificate.

The City contends that since it is a municipal corporation and a political and civil subdivision of the State and its property is not subject to taxes under the Constitution, the provisions of Sec. 11152 could not apply to it and it is entitled to the deed without first paying any taxes. If this contention is correct, it would be the duty of the collector to execute and deliver the deed demanded. If, on the other hand, the requirements of the section do apply to the City the collector properly refused to execute the deed.

Under Sec. 6 of Article X of the Constitution all of the property "real and personal, of the State, counties and other municipal corporations, and cemeteries, shall be exempt from taxation." Section 10937, R. S. 1939, also declaring this exemption simply follows the constitutional language. We have recently applied the principle so declared to exempt from taxation the property of a municipal Housing Authority. [Laret Investment Co. v. Dickmann, 345 Mo. 449, 134 S.W.2d 65.] But the exemption does not apply where the governmental agency holds naked legal title as trustee of a charitable trust, the beneficiaries of which constitute a limited class rather than the public as a whole. [City of St. Louis v. Wenneker, 145 Mo. 230, 47 S.W. 105, 68 Am. St. Rep. 561; People ex rel. v. The University of Illinois, 328 Ill. 377, 159 N.E. 811; McChesney v. The People, 99 Ill. 216; Comstock v. Boyle, 144 Wis. 180.]

Even though taxes have been levied and assessed against a tract of land while under private ownership, if it be afterwards acquired by a governmental agency such taxes may not be collected. [Bannon v. Burnes, 39 F. 892 (Western District of Missouri). And see cases cited in the notes in 30 A. L. R. 413 and 2 A. L. R. 1535.] Since the City is seeking to purchase the land in its public governmental capacity and not as a mere fiduciary, the land becomes immune from taxation as soon as the City becomes the owner of it and such immunity would extend to taxes previously assessed and levied.

The question for decision is whether the City is now such an owner of the land as is contemplated by the exemption provision of the Constitution. The City is the holder of the certificate of purchase to the land and the time for redemption has elapsed. It has presented its certificate to the collector as required and has demanded but has received no deed to the land.

We have previously passed on the office of a certificate of purchase and held that it alone did not pass title for the obvious reason title to land sold for taxes under the law of this State remains in the owner during the period of redemption. [See Donohoe v. Veal, 19 Mo. 331; Kohle v Hobson, 215 Mo. 213, 114 S.W. 952.] In Hilton v. Smith, 134 Mo. 499, 33 S.W. 464, the period of redemption had elapsed but the holder of the...