City of Jefferson v. Whipple

• Decision Date: 30 April 1880
• Parties: THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. WHIPPLE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

71 Mo. 519

THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, Plaintiff in Error,

v.WHIPPLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1880.

Error to Cole Circuit Court.--The case was tried before S. H. OWENS, ESQ., sitting as Special Judge.

AFFIRMED.

The particular description of the lot sought to be charged, which was stricken out of the petition by stipulation of the parties, was not found on the assessor's list or the tax books. The description there was simply “Part of inlot numbered 331 on the plat of the city.”

J. R. Edwards for plaintiff in error.

Botsford & Williams for defendant in error.

TAXES: vagueness of description in tax bill.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by the City of Jefferson to recover city taxes, and ten per cent penalty, and interest for the years 1866, 1873, 1874, 1875 and 1876, in which the plaintiff claims and by this suit seeks to enforce a lien against “part of inlot No. 331, on the plat of said city.” There was, in the petition as originally filed, a particular description of the part of said lot, sought to be charged with the taxes and lien, but, by stipulation between the parties, the particular description was stricken out, leaving the description of the property as above stated. A demurrer to the petition was sustained by the court, and plaintiff has brought the cause here by writ of error. The description of the property is so vague that no action can be maintained, either to enforce a lien, if one existed, or to recover the taxes. How is it possible from the description to ascertain what part of the lot is chargeable with the taxes, or the lien? A deed conveying a part of a lot, or a tract of land, would convey no legal title to any portion of the lot, or tract. The petition in this regard was therefore fatally defective.

2. ______: municipal corporation

In the case of Schmidt v. Smith, 57 Mo. 135, it was decided that the City of Jefferson has no lien upon property for city taxes assessed against it. In the case of the City of Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159, it was held that the City of Kansas had a lien for city taxes on real estate, because her charter expressly gave it, but, that for the city taxes of cities whose charters contained no such provision, the lien was given to the state. Nor has the City of Jefferson any right, under the charter, to impose a penalty for the non-payment of city taxes. Such power is not conferred, either expressly or by implication, and it is not an inherent power in municipal corporations.

3. ______: statute of limitations.

With regard to the statute of limitations, it has recently been decided by this court in the case of State to the use of Rosenblatt v. Heman, 70 Mo. 441, that the statute of limitations does...