City of St. Joseph v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Company

• Decision Date: 19 December 1904
• Citation: 84 S.W. 97,110 Mo.App. 124
• Parties: CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

84 S.W. 97

110 Mo.App. 124

CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

December 19, 1904

Appeal from Buchanan Criminal Court.--Hon. Benj. J. Casteel, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Cause affirmed.

R. L Spencer, Nathan Frank, Richard A. Jones and Max W. Oliver for appellant.

(1) The license fee of $ 50 imposed by section 1, chapter 40 of the laws of the city of St. Joseph for the non-payment of which judgment appealed from was entered, is of such amount and levied under such conditions that it is manifestly not simply a charge made for the purpose of defraying the expense of enforcing a police regulation, but is a tax for the purpose of providing revenue. Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo.App. 40; St. Louis v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145; Kansas City v Grush, 151 Mo. 128; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall 418; Tel. Co. v. Medford, 115 F. 202. (2) Being a tax, the ordinance of the city of St. Joseph providing for the levy and collection of this license fee is in conflict with the general law of the State (art. 8, chap. 119) enacted in 1895 in so far as it can be held to apply to foreign insurance companies, and so of non-effect as to them, for this act expressly provides that the two per cent per annum on all premiums which all foreign companies are obliged to pay the State irrespective of the net amount collected less loss by return of premiums or under the policies shall be in lieu of all other taxes. Its language is not limited in its scope to State taxes, nor are those levied by the various municipal subdivisions of the State excluded from its effect. R. S. 1899, sec. 8043. (3) The city of St. Joseph is a municipal corporation and is not authorized to levy or collect taxes of any kind, or for any purpose without express authority from the General Assembly. Ruggles v Collier, 43 Mo. 353; State v. Shortridge, 56 Mo. 126; Grading Co. v. Holden, 107 Mo. 305; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; R. S. 1899, sec. 5508, pp. 1275, 1276 and division 17, p. 1278. (4) The exercise of the right of taxation by the city of St. Joseph in so far as it is sought to be applied to foreign insurance companies is inconsistent with the provisions of section 8043, Revised Statutes 1899, before referred to.

Allen & Mayer for respondent.

(1) Respondent's charter gave it the power to license, tax and regulate insurance companies doing business within the city. R. S. 1899, sec. 5508. (2) Unless section 5508, Revised Statutes 1899, has been repealed, it makes no difference whether the ordinance in question imposes the license for revenue or as a police regulation; the city had the power to license for revenue the occupation of insurance. The same ordinance now in question was, prior to the enactment of section 8043, Revised Statutes 1899, held legal and valid by the Supreme Court. St. Joseph v. Ernst, 95 Mo. 360. (3) The ordinance was not rendered invalid by the enactment of section 8043, Revised Statutes 1899; or, in other words, section 8043, Revised Statutes 1899, did not repeal section 5508, Revised Statutes 1899. Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo.App. 35.

OPINION

BROADDUS, J.

This case was taken by appeal from the judgment of the Buchanan criminal court to the Supreme Court and from thence to this, as that court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a city of the second class and had in force an ordinance which reads as follows:

"No person or association, or companies of persons or corporation, shall carry on in this city, in person or by agent, the business of any kind of insurance without a license for that purpose, and the charge for such license shall be fifty dollars per year, and no license shall be issued for a shorter period than one year. Said license shall permit the insurance company securing the same to establish but one agency in said city on said license. Any person, or association or company of persons, or corporation, desiring to have more than one agency in this city, shall be required to take out a separate license for each agency, and the charge for such license for each additional...