Stadler v. Roth
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 400 |
| Parties | BARBARA STADLER, Adm'x of JOHN STADLER, dec'd, Respondent, v. CHARLES ROTH and JOHN MEYER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Jecko & Hospes, for Appellant.
I. The bill was incompetent evidence as against the defendant, Meyer, the only real defendant in the case. (Kefferstein vs. Knox, 56 Mo., 186.)
Thos. Grace, for Respondent.
I. The tax bill sued on was prima facie evidence of the validity of the charge against the property, even though the engineer failed in the first instance to insert in the bill the name of the real owner. (Sess. Acts 1871, p. 193, §§ 1, 2, 7; 1867, p. 74, § 11; City to use of McGrath vs. Clemens, 36 Mo., 473.)
II. The requirement of the statute that the engineer should make out the bill in the name of the owner of the land is directory, and a mistake on his part in that particular will not vitiate the assessment. (City to use of Creamer vs. Bernoudy, 43 Mo., 552; City to use Rotchford vs. DeNoue, 44 Mo., 137; Alvord vs. Collier, 20 Pick., 426.)
III. It was competent for the acting engineer to correct a mistake in the tax bill, committed by his predecessor in office, since the records and date showing the nature of the mistake were on file in his office and in his keeping. (Kiley vs. Cranor, 51 Mo., 543.)
This was an action brought by John Stadler, as assignee of a special tax bill issued December 23, 1867, by F. Bischoff, then city engineer of St. Louis, against Edward Buse, as the owner of the property therein described. During the progress of the suit Stadler died, and the cause was revived in the name of Barbara Stadler, as executrix. Defendant, Meyer, was the owner of the property described in the tax bill at the time of the institution of the suit. In December, 1872, plaintiff's attorney received the tax bill sued on from the plaintiff's testator for the purpose of collecting it, and finding, as he believed, that the title to the property sought to be charged by it was at the time the bill was issued not in Buse, but in the defendant, Charles Roth, he took the bill to the tax clerk, in the office of J. B. Moulton, then city engineer, and informed him of that fact. On the day following the tax clerk, having investigated the matter, returned the tax bill to him with the name of Buse erased, and that of Roth inserted in lieu thereof.
The tax bill was read in evidence against the objections of the defendant, Meyer, defendant Roth having made default. Defendant asked the court to give an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, which was refused and defendant excepted. There was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed at General Term, and defendant, Meyer, has appealed to this court.
The only question presented by the record for our decision is whether, on the testimony offered, plaintiff was entitled to recover. The acts of 1867, 1870, and 1871, in relation to special tax bills in the city of St. Louis, appear to have been devised with a view of creating a personal liability on the part of the owner of the property charged, and since the decisions of this court in the case of Neenan vs. Smith, (50 Mo., 525, and the city of St. Louis to use, etc., vs. Allen, (53 Mo., 44,) holding that no personal judgment can be rendered in such case, the unity and consistency of the acts having in a measure, been destroyed, it is a task not altogether without difficulty to determine what force and effect shall be given to the portions remaining undisturbed by judicial decision. The failure of the engineer, Bischoff, to insert in the bill the name of the true owner of the property did not vitiate the bill. Rotchford vs. De Noue (44 Mo., 137). If the validity of the bill should be held to depend upon the title being in the person named as owner, every action to enforce the collection of a tax bill might involve the necessity of trying the title to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coatsworth Lumber Company v. Owen
... ... Cranor, 51 Mo. 541; Galbreath v. Newton, 45 ... Mo.App. 312; Riley v. Stewart, 50 Mo.App. 494; ... Morley v. Weakley, 86 Mo. 450; Stadler, Admx. v ... Roth and Meyer, 59 Mo. 400. (5) The tax bills upon which ... the respondent recovered judgment were a proper subject for a ... ...
-
City of Higginsville ex rel. and to Use of Kasco, Inc. v. Alton R. Co.
... ... the issuance of the new special tax bills against the tracts ... of land in question. Roth v. Hoffman, 234 Mo.App ... 114, 111 S.W.2d 988. (5) Adverse user as aquiescence by ... prescription, if valid at all, is at most limited to the ... court by instruction requested, and was in defendant's ... motion for new trial. Stadler v. Meyer, 59 Mo. 400 ... (10) It is well settled law that alleged issuable facts ... cannot be submitted to a jury unless predicated upon ... ...
-
Steiger v. City of Ste. Genevieve
...v. The Wm. Pope, 19 Mo. 157; Miles v. Davis, 19 Mo. 408; Kiley v. Cranor, 51 Mo. 541, 543; Kiley v. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 374; Stadler v. Both et al., 59 Mo. 400; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 102 Mo. 664, 15 S.W. Judd v. Smoot, 93 Mo.App. 289; Coatsworth Lumber Co. v. Owen, 186 Mo.App. 543, 556......
-
City of Higginsville, Mo., v. Alton Railroad Co.
... ... Roth v. Hoffman, 234 Mo. App. 114, 111 S.W. (2d) 988. (5) Adverse user as aquiescence by prescription, if valid at all, is at most limited to the traveled ... The unconstitutionality of this statute was urged in the trial court by instruction requested, and was in defendant's motion for new trial. Stadler v. Meyer, 59 Mo. 400. (10) It is well settled law that alleged issuable facts cannot be submitted to a jury unless predicated upon evidence in the ... ...