State v. Cummings

Citation52 S.W. 29,151 Mo. 49
PartiesSTATE ex rel. WENNEKER, Collector of Revenue, v. CUMMINGS.
Decision Date19 June 1899
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Leroy B. Valliant, Judge

Action by the state, on relation of Charles F. Wenneker, collector of revenue, against John K. Cummings, for the collection of certain taxes. There was a judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This is an action by the collector of revenue of the city of St. Louis to recover certain delinquent personal taxes for the years 1894 and 1895. The petition alleges that John K. Cummings was assessed for the year 1894 as being the owner of personal property of the value of $23,000, upon which there were levied the sum of $471.50 for state, school, and city taxes; that for the year 1895 he was assessed as being the owner of personal property of the value of $25,000, upon which there were levied taxes to the amount of $512.50 for state, school, and city taxes. The petition further avers that by the laws of Missouri it was provided that all property in said city should be assessed by a board of assessors consisting of a president and one assessor for each assessment district; that said president and board of assessors, at the proper time and in the manner required by law, proceeded to and assessed the personal property of defendant, and thereafter, as required by law, made out their assessment books for the said years 1894 and 1895, and afterwards caused to be made out, in due time, proper tax bills, in the form and at the time prescribed by said laws, and against each person in said tax bills was set down the amount so fixed by said assessors as and for the taxes on personal property for said years, and due as such; that the collector endeavored, by all lawful means, to collect said tax bills against defendant, but was unable to do so; that thereafter, in pursuance of law, the collector made out and returned his delinquent list of taxes due on personal property, including that of defendant, as above specified; that all things, within the proper time and in proper manner and form, were done and performed by the proper officers in relation to said uncollected tax bills. He then pleads the delinquency of said taxes, and the duty of the collector to enforce their payment by suit in the circuit court. The pleader avers that the said personal taxes of defendant are correctly set forth in the tax bills filed with the petition, and duly authenticated by the certificate of the collector. He then alleges the interest due, and the contract with the attorney who brings this suit, and prays judgment for the taxes, penalties, and costs. The answer is a general denial, and a further plea that the president and board of assessors did not have jurisdiction to make the assessments, for that no list of the personal property claimed by them to be owned by defendant was made then or prior thereto, as required by sections 7531, 7532, 7535, Rev. St. 1889, nor did they make out and place the said personal property on the assessment books, as required by the laws of this state. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury.

The plaintiff introduced the tax bills and certificates thereto, certified copies of which accompany this opinion. Objections were made to these tax bills, because — First, the petition did not state a cause of action; secondly, they were not properly certified; third, that the taxes due the city could only be recovered by the city under the act of 1897. The objections were taken under advisement, and plaintiff rested. Defendant then offered evidence which showed that Chris. D. Brokate was a district assessor of the Seventh assessment district of St. Louis from 1890 to 1894; that defendant lived in that district in 1894 and 1895; that he served the notices on defendant to make out his list of personal property for assessment; that he went to defendant's residence, No. 1103 Clinton place, block 362, in St. Louis, June 9, 1894, and left a written notice under the doorsill, after having rung the doorbell and received no answer; that he then went to the next door, and served a notice, and as he came back defendant was then outside, and had the notice in his hands; that defendant inquired of the officer if he left that notice, and he was told he did; that, after much unnecessary profanity, defendant very emphatically swore that he would make no list. After that, the officer made no further effort to get in the house of defendant to list his furniture, or to ask him about the various kinds of property listed in the blank, but inquired of various persons as to defendant's property, and finally returned his list with an assessment of $11,500. This amount the president and board of assessors doubled to $23,000 for defendant's failure to make out any list, as he was notified to do. Notice was likewise served in 1895, and, no list having been returned, defendant was assessed by the district assessor at $12,500, and the board doubled that to $25,000. No specific character of property was listed in either case by the district assessor, but a lumping sum was named in each instance, — $11,500 in one, and $12,500 in the other. Upon this evidence the court found for defendant, and in due time the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, and it was overruled. Plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here by appeal.

The following is a copy of a tax bill and certificate:

                  CITY BOOK  6  BILL     1009a                                         State, School and City Taxes for   1894  
                  Received of      John K. Cummings                  Four Hundred and Seventy-One                               50 Dollars
                  Residence                     1103 Clinton Place.                                                             100
                                 Being the amount of State, School and City Taxes for the Year 1894, in St. Louis City, on Real Estate as below detailed, and on Personal Property
                ===================================================================================================================================================================================================================
                 City  |  Street or Avenue. |  Feet  |   Feet |   Addition.|   Block.|   Lot. |  North. | East. |  South. |   West. |   Specified  |      Designation of Taxes.        |     Aggregate of   |  Amount of Taxes
                Block. |                    | Front. |   Deep.|            |         |        |         |       |         |         |   Valuation. |                                   |    Assessed Value. |______________________
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |                                   |                    |  Dolls. Cts. | Mills
                -------|--------------------|--------|--------|------------|---------|--------|---------|-------|---------|---------|--------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------|--------------|-------
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |              STATE.               |                    |              |
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |Revenue.... $0.15 cents on    $100 |                    |              |
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |Interest...  0.10 cents on     100 |                    |              |
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |Total......  0.25 cents on     100 |          23000     |  57      50  |
                       |                    |        |        |            |         |        |         |       |         |         |              |        PUBLIC SCHOOL.             |                    |              |
                        I, CHARLES F.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Eckle v. Ryland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1914
    ... ... paid, the receipt of which I do hereby acknowledge, I, ... Eusebia N. Buford, widow, of the county of Lafayette and ... State of Missouri, have this day granted, bargained and sold ... and do hereby grant, bargain and sell unto Elisha M. Edwards ... of said county of ... laid down are sustained by Baumhoff v. Railroad, 171 ... Mo. 120, 125; State ex rel. v. Cummings, 151 Mo. 49, ... 57; and Kronenberger v. Hoffner, 44 Mo. 185, 191 et ... seq. "Where the facts are undisputed," says Bliss, ... J., in that ... ...
  • Price v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1941
    ...constitute in effect a special verdict upon which we must give expression to our conclusions of the law applicable thereto. [State ex rel. Wenneker v. Cummings, supra; Duell v. Leslie, 207 Mo. 658, 665, 106 S.W. City of Stanberry v. Jordan, 145 Mo. 371, 382, 46 S.W. 1093; Hinkle v. Kerr, su......
  • Eckle v. Ryland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1914
    ...just laid down are sustained by Baumhoff v. Railway Co., 171 Mo. loc. cit. 125, 71 S. W. 156, 94 Am. St. Rep. 770; State ex rel. v. Cummings, 151 Mo. loc. cit. 57, 52 S. W. 29; Kronenberg v. Hoffner, 44 Mo. loc. cit. 191 et seq. "Where the facts are undisputed," says Bliss, J., in that case......
  • State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Gehner
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1930
    ...to the Constitution of the United States in that it deprived that taxpayer of its property without due process of law. State ex rel. v. Cummings, 151 Mo. 49; State rel. v. Seahorn, 139 Mo. 582. Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and A. M. Meyer, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondents.......
  • 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