City of St. Louis v. Consolidated Coal Company
| Decision Date | 19 December 1892 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 699,113 Mo. 83 |
| Parties | The City of St. Louis v. The Consolidated Coal Company, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied 113 Mo. 83 at 88.
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Jas. E. Withrow Judge.
Reversed and Remanded.
C. W Thomas for appellant.
(1) The city having assessed the property for taxation was estopped to deny appellant the benefit of the forty per cent. reduction provided for by the ordinance. Martell v. East St. Louis, 94 Ill. 67. (2) The ordinance if it discriminates against those who are not "residents" of the city, solely on account of non-residence, is void. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; State v. North, 27 Mo. 464; Crow v. State, 14 Mo. 237. (3) The fact of residence, in the ordinary sense of that word, is unessential. The ordinance is based upon the consideration that all vessels using the wharf ought to submit as near as may be to like impositions, and where the vessels are not assessed for taxation the full license should be exacted, and vice versa. St. Louis v. Trans. Co., 84 Mo. 156. (4) The appellant was a resident of the city within the meaning of the ordinance. (5) The judgment is not for any certain sum.
W. C. Marshall for respondent.
(1) The ordinance fixing the rate of license fees is constitutional and a valid exercise of the powers of the city of St. Louis. Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423. (2) Under this ordinance none but residents of the city of St. Louis are entitled to the benefit of the forty per cent. reduction. St. Louis v. Trans. Co., 84 Mo. 156. (3) The fact that the defendant made return of the tugs and transfer barge in question and paid taxes thereon in St. Louis does not entitle it to the reduction. St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423. (4) Inasmuch as the city had the power to prescribe the rate of wharfage dues for all boats landing at its improved wharf (Cannon v. New Orleans, 87 U.S. 417; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80; Packet v. St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423; Cape Girardeau v. Campbell, 26 Mo.App. 12); and, inasmuch as the ordinance does not discriminate against the defendant but deals with persons according to their class, the court has no power to add to or take from the qualifications of each class as prescribed by the ordinance, and no person can claim the benefit of any reduction allowed by the ordinance unless he brings himself clearly within the terms of the ordinance.
The plaintiff recovered, in the court below, judgment against the defendant company for $ 200 on account of license fees for the two steam tugs, "Gartside" and "Alice Parker," and on the transfer barge "Louisa." The case is before us on defendant's appeal certified from the St. Louis court of appeals on the ground that plaintiff is a political subdivision of the state and hence this court has exclusive jurisdiction herein. Constitution of Missouri, art. 6, sec. 12.
The record shows that the license fees involved in the action were levied in 1888 and 1889 on said tugs and barges in pursuance of an ordinance of plaintiff, which, among other provisions, has the following: "A reduction of forty per cent. from the rates of license established by this section shall be allowed to vessels owned by residents of St. Louis and returned and assessed for taxation within said city during the year commencing on the first day of June immediately preceding the day on which the license takes effect."
The defendant claims the forty per cent. reduction allowed by this ordinance and tendered the residue.
On the trial defendant moved that the "steam tug 'Gartside,' and the transfer barge 'Louisa,' were registered under the laws of the United States in the port of St. Louis; that both of said vessels ply in the harbor of St. Louis and were returned by defendant for taxation in said city for the years commencing June 1, 1888 and June 1, 1889, and that defendant is a corporation created and existing by and under the law of Illinois, and makes return every year of a large amount of other property, real and personal, for taxation in said city and has its principal office in said city."
The court held that defendant was not entitled to the forty per cent. deduction and this presents the only question for decision.
I. The ordinance of the city exacting the license fees in question is valid as not being in conflict with any provision of the Constitution of this state, or that of the United States. Packet. Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423, 25 L.Ed. 688.
II. Plaintiff contends that defendant, being a foreign corporation, was not compellable to list the tugs and barge in St. Louis for taxation, and that it was not a resident...
To continue reading
Request your trial