State v. Little River Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 21825.,21825.
• Citation: 291 Mo. 72,236 S.W. 15
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CALDWELL, Collector, v. LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE DIST.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

236 S.W. 15

291 Mo. 72

STATE ex rel. CALDWELL, Collector, v. LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE DIST.

No. 21825.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 19, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cape Girardeau County; Frank Kelly, Judge.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of J. Frank Caldwell, Collector, against the Little River Drainage District, to enforce collection of taxes. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Oliver & Oliver, of Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

David B. Hays, of Jackson, for respondent.

W. K. Chandler, of Marble Hill, and Charles G. Revelle, of St. Louis, amicus curiæ.

RAGLAND, C.

The defendant is a drainage district. It was incorporated by the judgment and decree of the Butler county circuit court, November 30, 1907, under the provisions of article 3, chapter 122, R. S. 1899, and the amendments thereto. The purpose of this suit is to enforce the collection of state and county taxes, assessed and levied on office furniture, books, engineering instruments and office equipment, owned and used by defendant exclusively in carrying on and conducting its work as a drainage district. The only question presented for determination here is whether such property is exempt from taxation under section 6 of article 10 of the Constitution and its correlated statute (section 11335, R. S. 1909). The circuit court held that it was not, and gave judgment for the taxes. From that judgment defendant appeals.

The section of the Constitution just referred to, so far as it has any bearing on the subject under consideration, is as follows:

"The property, real and personal, of the state, counties and other municipal corporations, and cemeteries, shall be exempt from taxation. Lots in incorporated cities or towns, or within one mile of the limits of any such city or town, to the extent of one acre, and lots one mile or more distant from such cities or town, to the extent of five acres, with the buildings thereon, may be exempted from taxation, when the same are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable."

As a drainage district is not the state, nor a county, it must, in order for its property to be exempted from taxation under this provision, come within the designation of "other, municipal corporations." Whether it is a municipal corporation in the sense in which those terms are therein used is the concrete question presented for determination.

While it is generally conceded that a drainage district is a form of governmental corporation with limited powers, there exists a great diversity of opinion as to its exact status. For the purpose in hand it may be well to restate some of the basic principles underlying its creation. The power to drain swamp and overflowed land, referable to the police power, is a legislative function. This power the Legislature may, if it sees fit, exercise directly without the intervention of any independent agency. Unless restrained by some constitutional prohibition it would be perfectly legal and competent for it to effect drainage through commissioners and supervisors appointed by itself. Historically this was the method first adopted, and it is the one still employed in many states of the Union. In this state, however, legislative authority to provide for rural drainage is exercised through local organizations, incorporated under general law as drainage districts. This method, it is said, accords with the spirit of modern government which gives to the people, or any part of them, the largest possible control in matters peculiarly affecting them and their interests. People v. Drainage District, 155 Cal. 373, 103 Pac. 207. Such districts are incorporated upon the initiative of the landowners, and, under specific statutory mandates, are managed and controlled by the landowners. But notwithstanding the landowners have such a large voice in bringing them into existence and in managing their affairs, from the standpoint of the state, the districts are none the less legislative agencies, exercising exclusively governmental functions; the private benefits accruing to the individual landowners being purely incidental. Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 70 S. W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190, 94 Am. St. Rep. 727; Irrigation v. Williams, 76 Cal. loc. cit. 367, 18 Pac. 379; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461, 473, 17 N. W. 389, 46 Am. Rep. 637.

The statutes of this state under which drainage districts are organized declare them to be public corporations. Because of their inherent nature and because of the purposes for which primarily they are created, we have repeatedly held that they are not private corporations in any sense; that they are political subdivisions of the state, and exercise prescribed functions of...