City of Kansas v. Cook

• Decision Date: 31 October 1878
• Citation: 69 Mo. 127
• Parties: THE CITY OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. COOK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

69 Mo. 127

THE CITY OF KANSAS, Appellant,

v.COOK.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1878.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--HON. SAM'L L. SAWYER, Judge.

J. Brumback for appellant.

M. Campbell for respondent.

NAPTON, J.

This was a suit by the city for taxes of 1874 and 1875, on a tract of land, owned by Cook, of seventeen and one-half acres, which was included in the new limits of the city as fixed by the act of March 14th, 1873. The 3rd section of this act exempted from city taxation all subdivisions of land over five acres, but it is insisted that this exemption was unconstitutional, because the constitution declares that “all property subject to taxation ought to be taxed in proportion to its value,” and because it is further declared in the 16th section of the 11th article, that “no property, real or personal, shall be exempt from taxation, except such as may be used exclusively for public schools, and such as may belong to the United States, to this State, to counties or to municipal corporations within this State.” So that the only question in the case is whether this restriction in the act of 1873 is constitutional.

The Legislature, it seems, in allowing this increase of the limits of Kansas City, thought it advisable not to authorize any city or municipal taxation upon such tracts as exceeded five acres, and which they, therefore, concluded were agricultural land. It is suggested by the court in Giboney v. Cape Girardeau, 58 Mo. 143, that such restrictions would be proper, but in that case the constitutionality of such restrictions was not considered. There is no dispute that the land was subject to State taxation, but it is urged that when it was brought within the limits of the city the constitutional provision above referred to required the city taxation to be based upon its valuation, and consequently it could not be exempted from taxation. In other words, it is denied that the Legislature could annex a portion of agricultural land to the city and at the same time could withhold from the city the right to impose municipal taxes upon it. This seems to be the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Knowllon v. Supervisors of Rock Co., 9 Wis. 410, though in that case the right to tax was allowed, but the rate of taxation on farming land was less than that allowed on other lands, and that was held unconstitutional. We confess our inability to perceive why the Legislature should not enlarge the limits of Kansas City on such terms as ...