City of St. Louis v. Wenneker

• Decision Date: 25 June 1898
• Citation: 145 Mo. 230,47 S.W. 105
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. WENNEKER, Collector.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 S.W. 105

145 Mo. 230

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. WENNEKER, Collector.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 25, 1898.

TAXATION — EXEMPTIONS — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — REAL ESTATE — ASSESSMENT — NAME OF OWNER.

1. Under Const. 1875, art. 10, § 6, providing that the property of municipal corporations shall be exempt from taxation, property devised to a city in trust to constitute a relief fund for the benefit of poor emigrants coming to the city on their way to settle in the West is not exempt from taxation.

2. Under a provision of the revenue laws directing the assessment and taxation of all real estate not exempt therefrom, property held by a city as trustee may be assessed and taxed in the same manner as other property.

3. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 7553, requiring an assessment to be made in the name of the owner, if known, where property was assessed and tax bills were made out against it under the name of the "Mullanphy Emigrant Relief Fund," and at the time the revenue officers knew that the title stood in the name of a certain city, as trustee, the tax bills are void.

In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court.

Suit by the city of St. Louis, trustee under the will of Bryan Mullanphy, deceased, against Charles F. Wenneker, collector of said city. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

B. Schnurmacher and Chas. C. Allen, for appellant. Geo. E. Smith and G. A. Finkelnburg, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

The city of St. Louis, as trustee under the will of Bryan Mullanphy, deceased, instituted this proceeding in equity to prevent the enforcement of, and to procure a decree canceling, certain tax bills against real estate constituting part of the trust property. Mullanphy died in said city on the 15th of June, 1851. He gave to the city of St. Louis, by his will, one-third of all his property, real, personal, and mixed, "in trust to be and constitute a fund to furnish relief to all poor emigrants and travelers coming to St. Louis on their way, bona fide, to settle in the West." The city accepted the trust by an ordinance approved November 16, 1857. The real estate was partitioned, and plaintiff's share under the will set off by metes and bounds. The petition alleges "that since the year 1865 all the property thus owned by the plaintiff was expressly exempted by the constitution and laws of the state of Missouri from taxation. Yet, notwithstanding such exemption, the assessor of the city of St. Louis did pretend to assess said property for taxation from time to time for the years and in the manner hereinafter more fully shown, and did deliver the pretended tax bills evidencing such pretended assessments to the defendant and his predecessors in office, so that the same are now all held by the defendant as such collector, and the defendant threatens to enforce the same as liens against the property hereinafter described." The petition then states that said tax bills are void for the following reasons: "That they are assessed against property which by the constitution and laws of the state at the date of the assessment was wholly exempt from taxation," and "that they are assessed either against the `Mullanphy Emigrant Relief Fund,' or against the `Mullanphy E. R. Fund,' whereas there is not, and was not at the date of such assessment, any person, natural or artificial, known by that name, but that the name of such pretended owner as contained in such tax bills is a mere abstraction." A full description of the tax bills is given, and the prayer is that defendant be enjoined from enforcing them, and that they be canceled. The defendant demurred on the ground that the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This was overruled, and a decree entered as prayed, and defendant has brought the case here.

1. The first question for decision arises out of the claim that this property is exempt from taxation. This involves a construction of the constitutional provisions on that subject. Sections 6, 7, art. 10, of the constitution of this state adopted in 1875, are as follows:

"Sec. 6. Property Exempt from Taxation. The property, real and personal, of the state, counties and other municipal corporations, and cemeteries, shall be exempt from taxation. Lots in incorporated cities or towns, or within one mile of the limits of any such city or town, to the extent of one acre, and lots one mile or more distant from such cities or towns, to the extent of five acres, with the buildings thereon, may be exempted from taxation, when the same are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable; also, such property, real and personal, as may be used exclusively for agricultural or horticultural societies: provided, that such exemptions shall be only by general law.

"Sec. 7. Other Exemptions Void. All laws exempting property from taxation, other than the property above enumerated, shall be void."

It is plain that the framers of the constitution did not intend to permit property, regardless of its amount, to be relieved from taxation simply because of use for charitable purposes. A restriction is placed upon the exemptions that may be made upon that ground. Lots in incorporated cities and towns, or within one mile of the limits thereof, to the extent of one acre, and lots one mile or more from such limits, to the extent of five acres, "where the same are used * * * for purposes purely charitable," may be exempted by general law. There is an express prohibition against the exemption of any other property than that specifically enumerated. The real estate in question here greatly exceeds the limits above mentioned. It is not claimed — nor, indeed, can it be — that it can escape taxation, under the constitutional provision set out above, because of the use to which it is devoted under the Mullanphy will. Section 6, supra, in terms directs that property of the state and of counties and other municipal corporations shall be nontaxable. Immunity is claimed for this real estate solely under that provision. It is said that it is the property of the city of St. Louis, and hence is exempt. The legal title is unquestionably in said city, but it remains to be determined whether it is the property of the city, within the meaning of the above section of the constitution. It is certainly not held by it in the same manner or in the same right as its general corporate property. The devise is to it as trustee. The gift is not to the city of St. Louis. A trust is created for the benefit of a particular class, and the testator selected the city to execute it. Any other trustee might with equal propriety have been chosen, and, in carrying out the provisions of the will, such trustee would not have been assuming any municipal function, or interfering with the property of said city. A court of chancery might, even yet, in a proper case, and upon a proper showing, remove the trustee. "A court of chancery is vested with the same jurisdiction over corporate trusts which it ordinarily possesses and exercises over other trust estates." "The choice of trustees is a matter of judgment, and...