De Arman v. Williams

• Decision Date: 28 November 1887
• Citation: 93 Mo. 158,5 S.W. 904
• Parties: DE ARMAN v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

5 S.W. 904

93 Mo. 158

DE ARMAN v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 28, 1887.

1. TAXATION — TAXABLE PROPERTY — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — EQUAL AND UNIFORM TAXATION.

The Missouri Acts 1883, p. 134, require the assessor to make the assessment between the first of June and January; and the oath prescribed by Acts 1881, § 2, p. 179, shows that the list must include all property owned on the first of June. Plaintiff, a resident in J. county, Missouri, from June to December, 1882, had money which was duly assessed in that county for state and county purposes. After the latter date he removed to B. county, and invested the money in merchandise, upon which he paid a merchant's tax. Held, that he was still liable to taxation in J. county, for the tax year of 1883; and that such tax was not in violation of Const. Mo. § 3, art. 10, declaring that taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects.

2. SAME — COLLECTION — SENDING TAX BILL TO COUNTY TO WHICH PARTY HAS REMOVED — DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

The Missouri Acts 1883, p. 143, provide for the collection of personal taxes from persons removing from one county to another in the state, by sending a tax-bill to the sheriff of the county into which such persons have removed. Held, that such a proceeding could not be attacked on the ground that the tax-bill was not "due process of law."

Appeal from circuit court, Johnson county; NOAH M. GIVAN, Judge.

S. P. Sparks, for plaintiff in error. W. W. Wood, for defendant in error.

BLACK, J.

This contest was submitted to the circuit court under section 3700, Rev. St., upon agreed facts. The facts are these: On the first June, 1882, plaintiff resided in Johnson county, Missouri, and had on hand money of his own amounting to $2,135, which the assessor of that county duly assessed for state and county purposes, between that date and the first December, 1882. In January, 1883, plaintiff moved to Bates county, taking the money with him, where he invested the same in a stock of goods, took out a merchant's license, and has paid the license tax for 1883. The defendant collector of Johnson county has issued a tax-bill to the sheriff of Bates county, requiring him to collect the Johnson county tax; and the sheriff of Bates county is about to levy and sell the property of the plaintiff.

1. The assessor is required to make the assessment between the first of June and January, (Acts 1883, p. 134,) and from the oath prescribed by section 2, Acts 1881, p. 179, it is clear that the list must include all property owned on the first day of June. The plaintiff being a resident of Johnson county from June 1 to December 1, 1882, his personal property was liable to taxation in that county for the year known as the tax year of 1883. His subsequent removal to Bates county did not prevent the officers of Johnson county from extending and collecting the tax; nor does the fact that he, in 1883, invested the money in a stock of goods, and paid a merchant's license in Bates county for 1883, relieve him from the payment of the Johnson county tax. Had he remained in Johnson county, and there conducted a mercantile business, he would have had to pay a merchant's tax,...