American Airlines, Inc. v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 49211,No. 1,49211,1 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 161 |
| Parties | AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation, and Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, a Public Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Kerth Thies & Schreiber, Alfred H. Kerth, Clayton, Thompson Mitchell Douglas & Neill, James M. Douglas, Richard P. Conerly, W. Stanley Walch, St. Louis, for respondents, American Airlines, Inc., and Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Thomas J. Neenan, City Counselor, Thomas F. McGuire, Assoc. City Counselor, John J. Fitzgibbon, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for appellant City of St. Louis.
William E. Gallagher, County Counselor of St. Louis County, Walter H. Smith, First Asst. County Counselor, Warren H. Ritchhart, Asst. County Counselor, Norman C. Parker, County Counselor of St. Louis County, Gerald J. Bamberger, Asst. County Counselor, for appellants County of St. Louis and James Frank Bell, Collector.
PAUL VAN OSDOL, Special Commissioner.
This case treats with questions of the effect and validity of Chapter 155, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., pertaining to the taxation of 'aircraft' of an 'airline company' as in Section 155.010 defined, and particularly with the effect and validity of a proviso--'provided that, when any municipality in this state owns and operates an airport outside its corporate limits, the valuation determined hereunder shall also be apportioned to said municipality'--which proviso is appended to and is a part of Section 155.050.
(All sections of the Revised Statutes of Missouri mentioned herein are RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., except as otherwise cited.)
In this action, plaintiffs American Airlines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'American,' and Delta Air Lines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'Delta,' sought a declaratory judgment, and injunctive and other relief from taxes levied for the year 1960 by defendants City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, which levies were made on valuations of plaintiffs' aircraft as apportioned and certified to defendants, City and County, by the State Tax Commission pursuant to Section 155.050.
It was alleged by plaintiffs that the 'proviso' and the whole of Chapter 155 because of the proviso were violative and in contravention of state and federal constitutional provisions.
Defendant Collector of Revenue of St. Louis County by answer and counterclaim sought recovery for the amounts of taxes allegedly due from the plaintiffs for the year 1960, together with statutory interest, penalties and other charges upon alleged delinquencies of payment on and after January 1, 1961. And it is here pertinent to add that plaintiffs instituted this action December 28, 1960, and that they, in accordance with an order entered that day, on oral motion by plaintiffs, by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, paid into the registry of the Circuit Court, 'pending the determination of this matter,' the total amounts of the tax bills issued by the Collectors of the County and City.
The trial court found the proviso appendant to Section 155.050 invalid in its attempted apportionment of the protions of the Missouri valuations of plaintiffs' aircraft to defendant City for taxation, and enjoined the collection of the bills issued for taxes levied by City for the year 1960 and the issuance of tax bills for subsequent years by City under Section 155.050, and ordered the amounts that had been paid by plaintiffs, respectively, into the registry of the circuit court and equivalent to the tax bills on their aircraft issued by City to be, by the circuit clerk, paid over to plaintiffs. From this finding and portion of the judgment, defendant City of St. Louis has appealed, and herein contends that the proviso and the whole of Chapter 155 are valid and that the apportionments of valuations to City pursuant to Section 155.050, including the proviso, and City's levy of taxes on plaintiffs' property, aircraft, are lawful, reasonable, valid and constitutional.
However, the trial court found the remainder of Chapter 155 () to be valid, in effect declaring the validity of the bills for taxes levied by defendant St. Louis County for the year 1960 in the amounts of $18,203.54 on the aircraft of American and $8,534.32 on the aircraft of Delta. And the trial court ordered that, when this portion of the judgment becomes final, the Clerk of the Court is to pay these stated amounts to County and its Collector in satisfaction of the tax bills issued to American and Delta, respectively, on their aircraft. From this finding and portion of the judgment, plaintiffs, American and Delta, have not appealed.
The trial court found and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and adversely to defendant Collector of Revenue of St. Louis County on his counterclaim for statutory interest, penalties and other charges on alleged delinquencies in payment of the County taxes. And defendants St. Louis County and its Collector of Revenue have appealed from this part of the trial court's judgment and decree.
Preliminarily to our examination of the facts, and the issues raised in the two appeals, we shall set forth some other explanatory matters.
July 6, 1960, the State Tax Commission, acting under Chapter 155, particularly Section 155.040, determined the Missouri valuations of plaintiffs' aircraft for 1960 in the amounts of $1,815,088 for the aircraft of American and $751,592 for the aircraft of Delta. These determinations of Missouri valuations are in review in two actions pending in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (Case Nos. 30268E and 30269E). In these cases the Circuit Court by interlocutory orders enjoined the Commission from certifying Missouri valuations for 1960 in excess of $595,317 for the aircraft of American and $285,609 for the aircraft of Delta pending the final disposition of these numbered cases. The amounts the trial court in the instant case ordered paid over by the Clerk, upon final judgment to St. Louis County, $18,203.54, and $8,534.32, are the amounts of taxes levied by St. Louis County for the year 1960, on the aircraft of American and Delta, respectively, at the rate of $4.06 per $100 valuation on the State Tax Commission's assessments of the Missouri valuations as modified and reduced by the Circuit Court's interlocutory orders, and further apportioned and certified by the Commission to St. Louis County for tax levies. And the trial court in the instant case denied the prayer of defendant Collector of Revenue of St. Louis County for judgment against plaintiffs in excess of these stated amounts 'without prejudice to defendant Watt's right to collect additional personal property taxes for 1960 from the plaintiffs in the event the [State Tax] Commission ever lawfully certifies increased assessed valuations against plaintiffs' aircraft.' (Bracketed insert ours.)
The same amounts of apportionments of valuations for 1960 apportioned and certified to St. Louis County, $448,363 for the aircraft of American and $210,205 for the aircraft of Delta, were also certified by the Commission to the City of St. Louis for the levy of taxes pursuant to the proviso in Section 155.050.
In these connections, it is noted that although the City of St. Louis in its answer claimed, and City's Collector originally issued bills for taxes in 'composite' or total levies by City in its 'dual nature' as a 'city' and as a 'county,' defendant City and its Collector concede herein that City was in no event authorized to levy and collect taxes on the valuations certified to it, which levies were incident to its function as a 'county.'
We shall now consider the appeal of defendant City of St. Louis; and later consider the appeal of defendant St. Louis County and its Collector in another part of this opinion infra.
The City of St. Louis was by statute and charter lawfully authorized or empowered to acquire, establish, construct, own, control, lease, equip, operate, and regulate airports or landing fields for the use of airplanes and other aircraft 'either within or without' the city limits as a public purpose and as a municipal charge and a municipal or city purpose. The acquisition of lands for such purpose or purposes was authorized under the power of eminent domain as and for a public necessity. The City's issuance of bonds, and its levy of taxes to retire them, in the acquisition of land and the improvement and development of the land by City for an airport or landing field was authorized as a public purpose. And the legislative body of the City was authorized to adopt regulations and establish fees or charges for the use of the airport or landing field. Sections 305.170, 305.190, and 305.210; Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9, Charter, City of St. Louis; Dysart v. St. Louis, 321 Mo. 514, 11 S.W.2d 1045, 62 A.L.R. 762; Ennis v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 536, 11 S.W.2d 1054.
Defendant City acquired and established Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport (Lambert Field) in 1928. It is located in an unincorporated area in St. Louis County. City acquired land and made extensive improvements at a total cost of $23,000,000. Lambert Field is classified as a major air carrier transportation airport. Its service area is of wide radius in eastern Missouri and western Illinois, and 'all over.'
Plaintiffs are 'airline companies' operating 'aircraft' as in Section 155.010 defined, and in their airline operations their aircraft have 'arrivals and departures' at Lambert Field in St. Louis County.
We have noted that by Section 155.050, exclusive of the proviso, the apportionments allocated to local taxing areas are to each county, municipal township, city, and so forth, 'in which the airline company has arrivals and departures of its aircraft.' Thus, it seems, the tangible personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonnell Aircraft Corp. v. City of Berkeley, s. 48634
...case. We have held that St. Louis acts in a proprietary capacity in owning and operating its airport. American Airlines, Inc., v. City of St. Louis, Mo.Sup., 368 S.W.2d 161; see also Behnke v. City of Moberly, Mo.App., 243 S.W.2d 549, 553; 6 Am.Jur. 25, Aviation, Sec. 37; Annotation, 66 A.L......
-
United Air Lines, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
...words used and would violate the rule of strict, albeit reasonable, construction of such statutes.' And see American Airlines, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 161, 170. We conclude that the words 'in the manner' as applied to the levy and collection of the taxes by local official......
-
John Calvin Manor, Inc. v. Aylward
...over the validity of the tax by allowing the disputed tax to be paid into the registry of the court. American Airlines, Inc., v. City of St. Louis, 368 S.W.2d 161 (Mo.1963); Stein v. State Tax Commission, 379 S.W.2d 495 At the time American Airlines, supra, and Stein, supra, were decided, a......
-
Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. Weed
...avoidance of the tax. Here, the appellants intentionally decided not to pay the taxes in issue. See American Airlines, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 161 (1963). The statute provides an even more severe penalty for the tapxayer who fraudulently fails to pay his tax. In order to ......