State v. Pearson

• Decision Date: 22 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18592.,18592.
• Citation: 273 Mo. 72,199 S.W. 943
• Parties: STATE ex rel. QUICK, County Collector of Revenue, v. PEARSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

199 S.W. 943

273 Mo. 72

STATE ex rel. QUICK, County Collector of Revenue, v. PEARSON.

No. 18592.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 22, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; B. G. Thurman, Judge.

Suit by the State, on the relation of S. M. Quick, Collector of Revenue for Dade County, Mo., against F. E. Pearson. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thos. W. Martin, of Lamar, for appellant. Fred L. Shafer, of Greenfield, for respondent.

BROWN, C.

This is a suit by the collector of the revenue for Dade county to recover certain taxes, amounting to $17.92, for the use of Lockwood school district, in said county, for which judgment was given in his favor by the circuit court, from which this appeal was taken. It is submitted here upon an agreed statement of facts, which is as follows:

"It is stipulated and agreed between the parties hereto that the facts in this case are as follows:

"(1) That the defendant F. R. Pearson is now, and was at the time of the levy and assessment of the taxes sued on in this action, a resident of and in the Lockwood school district, in the city of Lockwood, Dade county, Mo.; that at all such times he was and is the owner of a farm situate in school district No. ____, in Dade county, Mo., and that he was at all times mentioned the owner of horses, mules, cattle, hogs, and other animals, and farming implements and tools, all of which were kept on and used in connection with said farm, which said farm defendant ran and operated, and that none of said property was ever in or kept in the said Lockwood school district; that the taxes herein sued for were assessed and levied against said stock and farm implements and tools to the defendant in Lockwood school district, Dade county, Mo.; that defendant protested against such an assessment and levy, for the reason that said property was located in and kept in said school district No. ____, on his said farm, and had its definite situs and location there, and for that reason defendant asked that said property be assessed and levied in said school district No. ____, and not in the Lockwood school district, where such property had never been kept or located.

"(2) That said taxes have not been paid by defendant, for the reason that same were assessed and levied in Lockwood school district, instead of in school district No. ____, where the same has at all times been kept on and used in connection with defendant's said farm."

The only question presented is whether the stock and implements kept and used on appellant's farm in another school district in the same county were taxable in the district of appellant's residence. If so, the judgment must be affirmed; otherwise, it must be reversed.

While the taxation of property situated within the jurisdiction of the state is a matter of legislative concern, subject only to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, yet the statutes to which we must look for the authority to exercise it are usually founded upon and embody certain principles to which we must look...