State v. Baker
Citation | 293 S.W. 399 |
Decision Date | 01 March 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 27809.) |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Parties | STATE ex rel. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. BAKER et al. |
John T. Barker, City Counselor, E. F. Halstead and Wm. H. Allen, Asst. City Counselors, all of Kansas City, amici curiæ.
This is an original certiorari proceeding in which relator seeks to quash the orders, judgments, records, and proceedings of the state tax commission and the state board of equalization pertaining to relator's assessment for the year 1926, on the ground that they are "unauthorized, unjust, illegal, and void, and without authority and beyond the jurisdiction" of respondents.
Respondents filed return to our writ admitting certain formal averments of relator's petition, and alleging that respondent state board of equalization assessed, adjusted, and equalized for taxation, for the taxes of 1926, all of relator's property except property essentially local, such as lands and buildings, supplies, tools, office furnishings and fixtures, motor vehicles, steam heating equipment, money and notes, the said property so assessed having been duly returned by relator to respondent state tax commission and originally assessed by said tax commission without protest on the part of relator save as to the valuations fixed thereon by said tax commission; that the final order of the state board of equalization, fixing the valuation and assessment of said assessed property at this sum of $21,227,785, was made on the 19th day of October, 1926; that, following the making of said final order, and prior to the issuance of the writ herein, respondents made an apportionment of said valuation and assessment, as expressed in said final order, to the city of St. Louis and to the respective counties through which and into which relator's lines of transmission run, and have certified such apportionment to the county courts of said counties and to the assessor of the city of St. Louis, as authorized by law, particularly section 13026, R. S. 1919; that respondents made the assessment of said property according to the method provided, and in the manner prescribed by law for the assessment of railroad property, as prescribed in article 13, c. 119, particularly section 13024; that is to say, respondents fixed, adjusted, equalized, and assessed the valuation of relator's distributable property, and apportioned said assessed valuation to the several counties aforesaid, and to the city of St. Louis, according to the wire mileage basis, apportioning to each such subdivision such part of the entire valuation as the number of miles of transmission lines within such subdivision bore to the entire mileage of relator's system within the state of Missouri; verified copies of relator's return at to said tax commission, and certified copies of the apportionments made by said board of equalization being attached to said rearm. In their said return respondents also deny the allegations made in said petition, to the effect that there is no authority under the laws of Missouri for the procedure adopted and followed by respondents in making said assessment and apportionment, and deny the allegations, to the effect, that respondents, in making said assessment, valuation, and apportionment, disregarded the law, but aver that the findings made by the tax commission, and by respondents as the state board of equalization, and all orders resulting therefrom were legal, and that in the making thereof respondents were performing their duty and acting within the scope of their powers as laid out by the law. Attached to said return are full and complete copies of the findings and orders, entries and minutes of said state tax commission and said state board of equalization pertinent and relevant to the issues herein.
Thereupon relator filed motion for judgment on the pleadings and record, containing specific requests as follows:
The grounds for said motion are therein stated as follows:
It is the well-settled policy of our law that taxes shall be levied and collected for public purposes on all property within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, except that expressly enumerated as exempt. Sections 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of article 10, Constitution of Missouri; section 12752, 12753, 12754, and 12756, R. S. 1919. It is equally well settled, however, that before property may be taxed it must by law be subjected to taxation. Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 219; Leavell v. Blades, 237 Mo. 695, loc. cit. 700, 141 S. W. 893; State ex rel. Am. Central Ins. Co. v. Lehner (Mo. Sup.) 280 S. W. 416, loc. cit. 419; State ex rel. Koeln v. Lesser, 237 Mo. 310, loc. cit. 318, 141 S. W. 888. In deciding the latter case, we said:
"Under our system of taxation there can be no lawful collection of a tax until there is a lawful assessment and there can be no lawful assessment except in the manner prescribed by law and of property designated by law for that purpose."
We understand the gist of relator's contention to be that, as far as respondents are concerned, no lawful manner of assessing its property has been provided. The assessment here complained of was made by respondent state tax commission pursuant to section 13056, R. S. 1919, as amended, Laws Missouri 1923, pp. 372, 373. The section is as follows, amendatory matter shown in italics,:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
... ... 335; Rogers L. & M. Works v. So. Railroad Assn., 34 Fed. 278; Bonner v. New Orleans. 3 Fed. Cas. 1631; Opdyke v. Pac. Railroad Co., 18 Fed. Cas. 10506; Low v. Cent. Pac. Railroad Co., 52 Cal. 53; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Louisville Gas Co., 118 Ky. 588; Broadway Nat. Bank v. Baker, 176 Mass 294; Thomas v. City Nat. Bank, 40 Neb. 501; Ellerman v. Rys. Co., 49 N.J. Eq. 217; Arnot v. Erie Ry. Co., 67 N.Y. 315; Dabney v. State Bank, 3 S.C. 724. Having the power to develop the townsite, the company had the power to pay for the improvement of the lands in question out of its own ... ...
-
State ex rel. Board of Police Commr. v. Beach
... ... 1919; Riley v. City of Kansas, 31 Mo. App. 439; Hudgins v. School District, 312 Mo. 1; State v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45; Sec. 8946, R.S. 1919; Sec. 9798, R.S. 1909; Laws 1919, p. 557; Sec. 8935, R.S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; Swendiz v. Power Co., 265 U.S. 322; State ex rel. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 853, 293 S.W. 399; State v. Schenck, 238 Mo. 429, 142 S.W. 263; State ex rel. v. Davis, 273 Mo. 660, 201 S.W. 529, National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 40 S.C. 237. (a) What the estimate is to be. Sec. 8926, R.S. 1919; State v. Field, 119 Mo. 613; State ex rel. v. Pike County, ... ...
-
Artophone Corporation v. Coale
... ... THE ARTOPHONE CORPORATION, a Corporation, Appellant, ... RALPH W. COALE, Assessor of the City of St. Louis; FORREST SMITH, State Auditor and WILLIAM F. BAUMANN, Collector of the City of St. Louis ... No. 36439 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... Division Two, November ... (2d) 71; State ex rel. Barrett v. First Natl. Bank, 297 Mo. 397, 249 S.W. 619, affirmed 263 U.S. 640; State ex rel. Union E.L. & P. Co. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 853, 293 S.W. 401; New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Reece, 169 Tenn. 84, 83 S.W. (2d) 238; Walker v. United States, 83 Fed. (2d) 103 ... ...
-
State ex inf. Gentry v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
... ... & M. Works v. So. Railroad ... Assn., 34 F. 278; Bonner v. New Orleans. 3 Fed ... Cas. 1631; Opdyke v. Pac. Railroad Co., 18 Fed ... Cas. 10506; Low v. Cent. Pac. Railroad Co., 52 Cal ... 53; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Louisville Gas Co., 118 ... Ky. 588; Broadway Nat. Bank v. Baker, 176 Mass. 294; ... Thomas v. City Nat. Bank, 40 Neb. 501; Ellerman ... v. Rys. Co., 49 N.J.Eq. 217; Arnot v. Erie Ry ... Co., 67 N.Y. 315; Dabney v. State Bank, 3 S.C ... 724. Having the power to develop the townsite, the company ... had the power to pay for the improvement of the ... ...