State v. Baker

Citation293 S.W. 399
Decision Date01 March 1927
Docket Number(No. 27809.)
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
PartiesSTATE 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.

ATWOOD, J.

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:

"First. To quash, set aside, and for naught hold the order entered by respondents on the 19th day of October, 1926, being the final order of assessment of the property of relator, and all other orders and proceedings entered by respondents or the state tax commission relating to the assessment of the property of relator and which have heretofore been certified to this court.

"Second. To quash, set aside, and for naught hold all the acts and proceedings of respondents mentioned and referred to in the return of respondents and relating to the assessment of the property of relator.

"Third. To quash, set aside, and for naught hold the apportionment of the value placed by respondents on relator's property as made and certified to this court.

"Fourth. To quash, set aside, and for naught hold all the acts and proceedings of respondents in reference to the apportionment of the valuation placed by respondents upon relator's property which are mentioned and referred to in the return of respondents heretofore filed herein."

The grounds for said motion are therein stated as follows:

"(a) That the statutes of this state fail to designate the specific property assessed by respondents for assessment by respondents.

"(b) That the statutes of this state fail to designate any specific property of relator for assessment by respondents.

"(c) The method of assessment designated by section 13056, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919, as amended, Laws of Missouri 1923, pp. 372, 373, is indefinite, uncertain, and unworkable, and confers no jurisdiction upon respondents to make the assessment which they have attempted to make herein.

"(d) That section 13002, R. S. Mo. 1919, relating to the assessment of railroad property, is unworkable when applied to the property of relator and confers no jurisdiction upon respondents to make the assessment which they have attempted to make herein.

"(e) That it appears upon the face of the pleadings and record herein that respondents were without power or authority to assess the specific portions of relator's property which they have attempted to assess.

"(f) That it appears upon the face of the pleadings and record herein that the action and orders of respondents were erroneous, illegal, and void.

"(g) That it appears upon the face of the pleadings and record herein that the respondents are without jurisdiction to assess the portions of relator's property which they have attempted to assess herein.

"(h) That section 13056, R. S Mo. 1919, as amended, fails to provide any method for the apportionment of the valuation placed by respondents on relator's property.

"(i) That section 13024, R. S. Mo. 1919, relating to the apportionment of valuations placed on railroad property, is unworkable when applied to the property of relator, and confers no jurisdiction on respondents to make the apportionment which they have attempted to make herein.

"(j) That it appears upon the face of the pleadings and record herein that respondents are without jurisdiction to apportion the valuation which they have placed upon the property of relator in the manner in which they have attempted to apportion same, or in any manner whatever."

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,:

"All bridges over streams dividing this state from any other stated owned, controlled, managed or leased by any person, corporation, railroad company or joint-stock company, and all bridges across or over navigable streams within this state, where the charge is made for crossing the same, which are now constructed, which are in the course of construction, or which shall hereafter be constructed, and all property, real and personal, including the franchises owned by telegraph, telephone, electric power and light companies, electric transmission lines, oil pipe lines, and express companies, shall be subject to taxation for the state, county, municipal and other local purposes to the same extent as the property of private persons. And taxes levied thereon shall be levied and collected in the manner as is now or may hereafter be provided by law for the taxation of railroad property in this state, and county courts, and the county and state boards of equalization are hereby required to perform the same duties and are given the same powers in assessing,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1928
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1930
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1939
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1928
    ... ... & 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT