Brown v. Harris

• Decision Date: 31 March 1873
• Citation: 52 Mo. 306
• Parties: WILLIAM H. BROWN, Respondent, v. NATHANIEL M. HARRIS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 Mo. 306

WILLIAM H. BROWN, Respondent,

v.NATHANIEL M. HARRIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1873.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Thomas C. Reynolds, for Appellant.

The tax books when regularly certified and authenticated afford the same protection to the collector in collecting taxes therein assessed, that a judgment at law does to the Sheriff in enforcing an execution issued thereon. (State vs. Shacklett, 37 Mo., 284; 47 Mo., 463; 43 Mo., 463; 49 Mo., 482; 50 Mo., 134.)

The revenue acts and the school tax acts, being in pari materia taxations, must be construed together and as a whole. We must construe the school act of 1867, to mean that when assigning certain duties to the County Clerk, it meant merely the officer who performed like duties in regard to the State and County revenue: i. e. in St. Louis County the Auditor.

Even if the Clerk of the County Court were the proper officer to assess the school taxes, his getting the Auditor to do so for him was a mere technical irregularity not invalidating the tax bill.

B. D. Lee, for Respondent.

The County Auditor had nothing whatever under the law to do with issuing the tax bill or making the assessment for taxes in this case, and there was no justification in the action of the Collector in making the levy; because he was bound to know that the bill was made out by the officer having authority thereto.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff brought his action of trespass against the defendant for taking and seizing a package of bank notes.

The defendant justified the seizure on the ground that he was County Collector at the time and that the notes were taken to satisfy the tax bill in his hands, which had been assessed against the plaintiff for school taxes. This fact was put in issue by the replication. It seems, that the County Auditor extended the tax on the assessments, returned and issued the warrant to the Collector, and that the County Clerk had nothing to do with it. The law in force at the time was the act of 1867. (2 W. S., 1, p. 1265), in relation to schools in cities, towns and villages, the 8th section of which provides, that the same assessment on property, which shall be made from time to time for State and County purposes, shall be deemed and used as the lawful and proper assessment in levying and collecting the taxes and assessments authorized by this Act; and such taxes and assessments shall be a lien upon and against the property so taxed and assessed, until the same shall be paid off and satisfied. “Said Board shall, on or before the first Monday of April of each year, cause to be...