City of St. Joseph ex rel. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. CO. v. Saville

• Decision Date: 28 February 1867
• Citation: 39 Mo. 460
• Parties: THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ex rel. AND TO THE USE OF THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. EDWIN H. SAVILLE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

39 Mo. 460

THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ex rel. AND TO THE USE OF THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,

v.EDWIN H. SAVILLE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1867.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.

The plaintiff asked the court to make the following declarations of law:

1. The chief office and place of business of a railroad company is where the general office of the company is kept and where the chief officers and managing agents of such company keep their offices and do the business of the company.

2. If the court believe from the evidence that the chief office and place of business of the relator was in the city of Hannibal, in the county of Marion, and State of Missouri, at the time of assessing and collecting the taxes sued for, and that relator was the owner of the steamboats described in the petition, and that said taxes were assessed upon said steamboats by the City of St. Joseph, then such assessment was made without any authority of law, and the defendant Saville became a trespasser in coercing the collection thereof, and it will find for the plaintiff, notwithstanding it may believe from the evidence that the superintendent and other managing agents of said steamboats resided and kept their offices, and did the business of said steamboats, in the city of St. Joseph, and that said steam boats were loaded and unloaded there, and when not running they were laid up in the port of St. Joseph.

3. It is admitted by the pleadings in this cause that the relator was a corporation of the State of Missouri at the time of assessing the taxes sued for.

4. If the court believe from the evidence that the relator was the owner of said steamboats at the time of assessing the taxes sued for, then such assessment was made without any authority of law, and the defendant Saville became a trespasser in coercing the collection thereof.

5. If the court believe from the evidence that said steamboats, or any of them, were not within the limits of the city of St. Joseph on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1864, then such steamboats were not subject to taxation by the City of St. Joseph, and the court will find for the plaintiff as to such steamboat or steamboats.

6. If the court believe from the evidence that the relator was the owner of the steamboat J. H. Lacy at the time of assessing the taxes sued for, and that said steamboat was not within the limits of the city of St. Joseph on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1864, and never had been prior thereto, then the assessment thereon of the taxes described in the petition was made without any authority of law, the court will find for the plaintiff as to the taxes so assessed and collected.

7. If the court believe from the evidence that the relator was owner of said steamboats at the time of assessing said taxes, and that the same were assessed in the name of the Missouri River Packet Company, then such assessment was made without any authority of law, and the court will find for the plaintiff.

8. The ordinances read in evidence do not authorize the assessment of any taxes on the property of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company to pay the St. Joseph and Topeka Railroad bonds, or the Roseport and Maryville Railroad bonds.

9. The ordinances read in evidence do not authorize the assessment of taxes on property of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company for the special tax of 1864.

10. The ordinances read in evidence only authorize the assessment of taxes on the stock of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Company in the hands of the stockholders, and not upon the property in the hands of said company.

The court gave the 1st, 3d, and 6th, and refused the other instructions, to which plaintiff excepted.

Carr, and Hall & Oliver, for appellants.

I. The court below should have received in evidence the certificates or enrolment of the steamboats of relator, taxed by the City of St. Joseph. Those certificates prove that the domicil of said boat was not St. Joseph, where they were assessed, and that said boats were consequently not subject to taxation by said city--Hays v. Pacific Mail Co., 17 How. 596; 23 N. Y. (9 E. D. Smith), 224.

II. The ordinance of 23d of August, 1864, did not authorize the assessment of relator's boats for the special tax of 1864. That ordinance taxes only such property within the city limits “ as is made taxable by law.” What is meant by ““““property made taxable by law?” “Made” implies something more than authorized and permitted.

It is said relator's property is subject to the special tax of 1864, because the city charter authorizes the city to tax all property within the city limits, and relator's property being within the city limits, was liable to be taxed by the city. In other words, the term in the ordinance of 23d of August, 1864, “made taxable by law,” simply means “liable to be taxed under the city charter.” If the construction be true, the words “made taxable by law” are without meaning, and the ordinance would have had the same signification if these words had been omitted altogether. That certainly was not the understanding of those who passed the ordinance. The ordinance imposing taxes for general purposes merely directs taxes to be imposed on all property within the city without any limitation; but when special taxes are imposed the language is changed, and words of limitation and restriction are used, because it was not intended that all property should pay the special tax.

The steamboats were not assessed to the owners, as required by city ordinance. The city ordinances read in evidence taxed only the stock of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company in the hands of its stockholders--Bangor v. Piscataqua R. R. Co., 21 Maine, 534; Redf. on Railw. 527-9, 531; 23 N. Y. 224; Ang. & Ames on Corp. § 460-1; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449; Rev. Stat. Mo. 1855, p. 412, § 8; 4 Metc. 187; 10 Mass. 517; 14 Mo. 314; 8 Watts, 289, 30 Mo. 560.

Vories & Vories, for respondent.

The only two allegations of fact in the petition relied on by the plaintiff to show the illegality of the levy of the taxes collected were, 1st, that the chief office and place of business was in Hannibal, in Marion county; and 2d, that said steamboats were by the laws of this State exempt from taxation. There was no allegation that they were either taxed or taxable elsewhere than in the city of St. Joseph. Again, if these boats were taxable at all by the City of St. Joseph, it was because they were personal property within the city limits.

The statute of this State to provide for the levying and collecting of the revenue for State and county purposes, provides specifically what property shall be the subject of taxation, and amongst other articles enumerated are “shares of stock in banks and other incorporated companies, excepting manufacturing companies, the property of which alone shall be taxed, and all property owned by incorporated companies, over and above their capital stock,” &c. Now if the State should levy a tax on the “shares of stock,” and then tax the very property represented by the shares of stock, this would be double taxation; but it would be competent for the Legislature to adopt whatever...