Blossom v. Van Court

• Decision Date: 31 March 1864
• Parties: CHALMER D. BLOSSOM, Appellant, v. BENJAMIN J. VAN COURT, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

34 Mo. 390

CHALMER D. BLOSSOM, Appellant,

v.BENJAMIN J. VAN COURT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1864.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

This suit was commenced December 15, 1857, and was submitted to the Land Court upon the following facts:

“Benjamin J. Van Court and Alexander Van Court acquired the lot of ground in the year 1847, by deed dated December 21, 1847. On the 30th March, 1853, Alexander Van Court and wife made a deed to Benjamin J. Van Court.

On February 11th, 1857, Benj. J. Van Court made to plaintiff a deed of “grant, bargain and sale” in the usual form. At that time there were arrears of taxes due upon the land or lot of ground described in the deed to plaintiff for several years, but all of these have, since the commencement of this action, been paid by the defendant--no part of these having been paid at any time by the plaintiff. Before the beginning of this suit plaintiff paid the taxes on said land for the year 1857, to wit, on the 3d day of November, 1857; he paid the State, railroad and county taxes, amounting to sixty-three dollars and twenty eight cents; and on the 15th day of November, 1857, he paid the city taxes, amounting to forty-two dollars and seventy cents.”

Bland & Colman, for appellant.

I. The only question submitted to the court, or “intended to be presented” by the agreed case, was whether the appellant was chargeable with the payment of the taxes of 1857, or any part thereof? Were the taxes of 1857 a lien or encumbrance upon the premises conveyed on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1857, at the date of the conveyance?

The statute in force at the time of the execution of the conveyance in question having directed such taxes to be assessed on the first day of February of each year, are they not presumed to have been assessed the 1st day of February, 1857? Taxes become a lien upon the real estate against which they are assessed from the time they are directed to be assessed.

It is necessary that some certain time be fixed at which taxes become a lien; if they are so only from the time of their actual assessment, the time of the lien will vary each year according to the date of such actual levy; and the only reasonable or proper time for the fixing of such lien, is on the day the taxes are by law directed to be levied or assessed. The several provisions of our statutes on this subject indicate that as the day from which the taxes become an encumbrance on the lands assessed. (R. C. 1855, p. 1326, § 18, 19; p. 1332, § 33, 34; p. 1334, § 49; p. 1347, § 56; p. 1330, § 21; p. 1331, § 31.)

The taxes for the year 1857, upon the premises described in the conveyance in question, became a lien or encumbrance thereon on the first day of February, 1857; that such encumbrance existed at the date of the conveyance; and that the appellant, having paid them, as set forth in the agreed case, was entitled to a judgment in his favor for the amount thereof. (8 Watts v. Seg. 449; Commonwealth v. Bank, 22 Pick. 176; 8 Georgia, 479; Doe, ex dem. Gledury, v. Devors, 3 Cow. 75; 12 Mo. 143.)

T. T. Gantt, for respondent.

The judgment of the court below was correct, and should be affirmed for the following reasons, viz:

I. The suit was brought December 15, 1857; that is, before the end of the year when the taxes were due. Whether Van Court was bound to pay the taxes of 1857 or not, he had the whole year to pay in, and was not liable until the year had closed for failing to pay. No demand was made of him to pay these taxes in respect of the taxes of 1857; then no cause of action had arisen on the 15th December, 1857, no matter what view be taken of the liability of the defendant to pay these at some time or other. But at that time certain old taxes were due and unpaid, which, after the commencement of the suit, were discharged wholly by the defendant. Here was a technical breach of the covenant, and for the breach the court awarded nominal damages.

II. The taxes of 1857 were not, in contemplation of law, an encumbrance on the land when sold by him to plaintiff. As to the city taxes, it is settled that the period for which these may be charged, and the time at which they become a charge on lands, depends on the ordinances of the city of St. Louis; unless these are shown, the court below could know nothing on the subject. No ordinances were shown, and therefore it is impossible to say that in respect of the city taxes any error was committed by the court below. (City of St. Louis v. Benoist, 19 Mo. 179.)

As respects the State and county taxes, the matter, though not disposed of so summarily, is no less clear.

By the act of 13th December, 1855, (R. C. p. 1329, § 18, art. 2,) each assessor was directed to proceed on the first day of February in each year, and ascertain what lands and other taxable property were on that day owned by any person in his district. By the light of this information he was to make up his tax-book, (§ 43, p. 1333-4,) and this tax-book was to be returned to the County Court of each county on or before the first of July in each year. At the next term of the County Court thereafter--not to more than thirty days thereafter--the County Court was directed to sit as a Court of Appeals on this tax-book, after publication made. (§ 50.) So soon as the appeals had been heard and determined, it was the duty of the clerk of the court to make out a fair copy, authenticated by the seal of the court, for the use of the collector. (§ 55.)

So much for the State tax. It appears from this...