Bank of Carthage v. Thomas

• Citation: 48 S.W.2d 930,330 Mo. 19
• Decision Date: 02 April 1932
• Docket Number: 30103,30104
• Parties: Bank of Carthage, a Corporation, et al. v. L. M. Thomas, County Clerk of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., Appellants. Joplin National Bank of Joplin, Missouri, a Corporation, et al., Respondents, v. L. M. Thomas, County Clerk of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

48 S.W.2d 930

330 Mo. 19

Bank of Carthage, a Corporation, et al. v. L. M. Thomas, County Clerk of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., Appellants. Joplin National Bank of Joplin, Missouri, a Corporation, et al., Respondents, v. L. M. Thomas, County Clerk of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., Appellants

Nos. 30103, 30104

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 2, 1932

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court; Hon. Grant Emerson Judge.

Reversed and injunction dissolved.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, for appellants; Haywood Scott and L. Cunningham of counsel.

(1) The State Board of Equalization is created by Sec. 18 of Art. X of the Constitution of Missouri, and its members are the Governor, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Secretary of State and Attorney-General, as such officers of the State of Missouri. The place of domicile of the State Board of Equalization of Missouri is at the capitol in Jefferson City Cole County, Missouri, where it has its existence and being and where its records are kept. It is not a separate entity from its members, and its members by virtue of their position as officers of the State of Missouri constitute its body in the entirety. It has no existence and cannot be sued outside of Cole County, Missouri. Sec. 18, Art. X, constitution; Secs. 12853, 12854, 12855, 12856, 12857, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Hall, 221 S.W. 708; State ex rel. Gardner v. Harris, 286 Mo. 262; State ex rel Johnson v. Bank, 279 Mo. 229; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Bates, 296 S.W. 418. (2) The action of the State Board of Equalization of Missouri in equalizing the aggregate valuations of the several kinds of property between the several counties of the State is judicial in character and its decisions have the force and effect of judgments. State ex rel. Johnson v. Bank, 279 Mo. 229; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021; State ex rel. v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 19 S.W.2d 746; First Trust Co. v. Wells, 23 S.W.2d 108; State ex rel. Johnston v. Buder, 242 S.W. 979; State ex rel. v. Casey, 210 Mo. 235; State ex rel. Ashby v. Three States Lumber Co., 198 Mo. 430; State ex rel. Arnold v. McCune, 252 S.W. 657. (3) No action can be brought to stay or enjoin the assessment judgment of the State Board of Equalization except in the county in which said judgment was rendered under the plain provisions of Sec. 1951, R. S. 1919, which is as follows: "Proceedings on an injunction to stay a suit or judgment shall be had in the county where the judgment was rendered or the suit is pending, and the summons may be directed and served as summons in ordinary cases." If there had been any errors in the proceedings by which the assessment judgment of the State Board of Equalization was rendered, the application for an injunction operated as a release of all such errors under the plain provisions of Sec. 1956, R. S. 1919, which is as follows: "Every such injunction shall operate as a release of all errors in the proceedings that are prayed to be enjoined." The Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, is given no authority under the Constitution or by law to review the judgment of the State Board of Equalization. Moreover, if it had such authority, injunction cannot be used for the purpose of reviewing a judgment. Dorris Motor Car Co. v. Coburn, 307 Mo. 137. (4) The State Board of Equalization of Missouri only exists in Cole County, Missouri, and cannot be sued in any other county. State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Bates, 296 S.W. 423. The plaintiffs had a complete and adequate remedy at law by complaint to the State Tax Commission if the assessments of their shares of stock were improper and having failed to avail themselves of such remedy, they are not entitled to equitable relief. Secs. 12847, 12848, R. S. 1919; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 19 S.W.2d 746. (5) The Clerk of the County Court of Jasper County, Missouri, was under the mandatory duty to extend the aggregate valuation of shares of stock in banks and trust companies in Jasper County, Missouri, as fixed by the judgment of the State Board of Equalization. This action seeks to enjoin him from performing the duty that he could be compelled by mandamus to perform. Injunction does not lie to prevent the performance of a mandatory duty, or in other words, the clerk of the county court would not be subject to an action in mandamus to compel him to perform an official duty and at the same time be subject to injunction to prevent him from performing that same duty. It was his duty to extend the valuations of such shares of stock as the aggregate was fixed by the State Board of Equalization. The court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. State ex rel. v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38; First Trust Co. v. Wells, 23 S.W.2d 108. (6) The law contemplates that all property in Missouri subject to taxation shall be assessed for taxation at its true value in money; that it shall be taxed in proportion to its value, and that such taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects for taxation within the territory of the authority levying the tax. Secs. 3 and 4, Art. X, Constitution; Secs. 12802, 12855, 12775, 12821, 12822, 12823 and 12826, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 165 Mo. 502; State ex rel. v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; First Trust Co. v. Wells, 23 S.W.2d 108; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 19 S.W.2d 746. The State Board of Equalization of Missouri is established by the Constitution for the express purpose of carrying into effect the principles enumerated above, and its judgment is final and conclusive on the question of the aggregate valuation to be placed on classes of property in the city of St. Louis and the other counties of the State in equalizing the same among them. Sec. 18, Art. X, Constitution; Sec. 12855, R. S. 1919; Secs. 12821 and 12826, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Laclede Land & Imp. Co. v. Tax Comm., 295 Mo. 298, 243 S.W. 887; State ex rel. v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38; State ex rel. Johnson v. Bank, 279 Mo. 228; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; State ex rel. v. Hall, 221 S.W. 708; State ex rel. Gardner v. Harris, 286 Mo. 262; State ex rel. Hawken v. Edwards, 315 Mo. 209; State ex rel. Teare v. Dungan, 265 Mo. 353; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Hoyt, 123 Mo. 348.

Howard Gray, Allen McReynolds and A. E. Spencer for respondents.

(1) The Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, in a suit brought against L. M. Thomas, County Clerk of Jasper County, Missouri, and the State Board of Equalization, had jurisdiction of the parties. Sec. 1177, R. S. 1919. (2) The Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, had jurisdiction of a proceedings to prevent enforcement of an assessment judgment which was fraudulently concocted. Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 312 Mo. 1298, 298 S.W. 732. (3) The action here was not brought to vacate or modify the judgment of the State Board of Equalization. It was a proceedings to prevent the enforcement of the judgment, brought in such a manner as has been approved by this court. Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 298 S.W. 732; Jefferson City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser, 300 S.W. 778. (4) These proceedings are analogous in purpose and form to proceedings approved by this court in the following case: K. C. Rys. Co. v. McCardle, 288 Mo. 354, 232 S.W. 467. Also, in the class of cases referred to approvingly by the following authorities; Turner v. Hunter, 225 Mo. 83; Henman v. Westheimer, 110 Mo. 195; Coatesworth Lumber Co. v. Owen, 186 Mo.App. 543, 172 S.W. 436. (5) In equitable proceedings parties are classified as necessary parties or proper parties. 21 C. J. 297, 303. In the action brought here, the State Board of Equalization were proper parties but not necessary parties. Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 312 Mo. 1298, 298 S.W. 732. (6) Where there is independent equitable ground, such as fraud, accident or mistake, equity has jurisdiction regardless of a remedy at law. 23 C. J. 555; Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 312 Mo. 1298, 298 S.W. 732. (7) The remedy here invoked has been approved in the following cases: Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 312 Mo. 1298; Jefferson City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser, 300 S.W. 778; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021; State v. Baker, 320 Mo. 1146, 9 S.W.2d 592; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38.

Ferguson, C. Sturgis and Hyde, CC., concur.

OPINION

FERGUSON

These are suits in equity filed in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, whereby it is sought to permanently enjoin the Clerk of the County Court of Jasper County from entering upon the tax books, and adjusting same to conform to the order and judgment of the State Board of Equalization determining, fixing and assessing the aggregate value of shares of bank stock of banks and trust companies in Jasper County as a basis for taxes for the year 1928. Fraud is alleged in the concoction of the order and judgment of the State Board of Equalization. All the state banks of Jasper County, twenty-two in number, joined as plaintiffs in case numbered 30,103 and all the national banks in that county, seven in number, joined as plaintiffs in case numbered 30,104. The allegations of the bills in the two cases are identical except that in the first case it is alleged that plaintiffs are "banking corporations organized and existing under the laws" of this State and in the second that the plaintiffs are "banking corporations organized and existing under the...