Coleman v. Kansas City, No. 39027.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtClark
Citation182 S.W.2d 74
PartiesROBERT J. COLEMAN, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. BURR S. STOTTLE, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date03 July 1944
Docket NumberNo. 39028.,No. 39027.
182 S.W.2d 74
ROBERT J. COLEMAN, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. BURR S. STOTTLE, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 39027.
No. 39028.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Court en Banc, July 3, 1944.
Rehearing Denied, September 5, 1944.

[182 S.W.2d 75]

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Wm. E. Kemp, City Counselor, and John J. Cosgrove, Assistant City Counselor, for defendant-appellant.

(1) Secs. 7725 to 7734, inclusive, R.S. 1939, conflict with Section 10, Article X, of the Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional. Hence, the court erred in giving, upon the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to recover under said statutes, in Case No. 470346, plaintiff's findings of fact III to XXX inclusive (except VIA, XIIA, and XIIIB, which were refused); in giving plaintiff's requested conclusions of law I, II and IV, and in refusing defendant's requested conclusions of law I, II, and III; in giving, in Case No. 493214, plaintiff's requested findings of fact III to XIV inclusive; in giving plaintiff's conclusions of law I, II and IV; and in refusing to give defendant's requested declarations of law I, II and III which were offered on the theory that said statutes were unconstitutional and void — this for the reason: (2) Since the taxes collected by the license collector are used exclusively for municipal purposes, the collection of such taxes is a purely local or municipal affair. Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 479, 27 S.W. 711; West Coast Adv. Co. v. City, 95 Pac. (2d) 138; O'Connor v. City of Laredo, 167 S.W. 1091; Ex parte Jackson, 77 Pac. 457; Milliken v. Meyers, 144 Pac. 321; Kansas City v. Holden, 107 Mo. 304; People v. Village of Pelham, 215 N.Y. 374, 109 N.E. 513. By Section 10, Article X, of the Constitution, the General Assembly is prohibited from imposing taxes upon, or collecting taxes for, municipal corporations. Sec. 10, Art. X, Mo. Const.; 1 McQuillin on Municipal Corp. (2 Ed.), p. 592; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. l.c. 894, 2 S.W. (2d) 713; Kansas City v. J.I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 87 S.W. (2d) l.c. 205, 337 Mo. 913; Lexington v. Thompson, 68 S.W. 477; Metz v. Maddox, 82 N.E. 507; State v. Simon, 53 N.J.L. 550; People v. Township, 25 Mich. 153; Davies v. Saginaw, 50 N.W. 862; Prescott v. Ferris, 295 N.Y.S. 818; Tiger v. Court of Common Pleas, 42 N.J.L. 631; Stahl v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, 54 N.J.L. 444, 24 Atl. 478; Closson v. Trenton, 48 N.J.L. 438, 5 Atl. 323, affirmed in 49 N.J.L. 482, 9 Atl. 719; People v. Village of Pelham, 215 N.Y. 374, 109 N.E. 513. (3) The power to levy and collect license taxes has been vested in Kansas City, Missouri. Laws 1875, pp. 196-263; Sec. 16, Art. IX, Mo. Const.; Sec. 9589, R.S. 1939; Kansas City v. Threshing Mach. Co., 87 S.W. (2d) 195, 337 Mo. 913; Sec. 1, Art. 1, and Sec. 82, Charter of Kansas City; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670, 202 S.W. l.c. 11; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 6 S.W. (2d) l.c. 941. (4) If said statutes are constitutional, they nevertheless do not apply to a city operating under a constitutional charter. Hence, the court erred in giving, upon the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to recover under said statutes, in Case No. 493214, plaintiff's requested findings of fact III to XIV inclusive; his requested conclusions of law I, III and IV; and in refusing defendant's requested declarations of law I, V, VI, VIA, and VIB; in giving, in Case No. 470346, plaintiff's requested findings of fact III to XXX inclusive (except VIA, XIIA and XIIB, which were refused); in giving plaintiff's requested conclusions of law I, III and IV, and in refusing to give defendant's requested declarations of law I, V, VI, VIA, and VIB, offered on the theory that the charter and ordinances of Kansas City applied. The Charter of Kansas City embraces a complete scheme of local self-government in purely municipal affairs. State ex rel. Kansas City v. Field, 99 Mo. 352, 12 S.W. 802; McGhee v. Walsh, 249 Mo. 266, 155 S.W. 445; Mullins v. Kansas City, 268 Mo. 444, 188 S.W. 193; Kansas City v. Field, 270 Mo. 500, 194 S.W. 39; State ex rel. v. Lucas, 317 Mo. 255, 296 S.W. 781; Kansas City v. Marshall Oil Co., 140 Mo. 458, 41 S.W. 943; State ex inf. v. Kirby, 163 S.W. (2d) 990, 349 Mo. 988; Siemens v. Shreeve, 317 Mo. 736, 296 S.W. 415; Morrow v. Kansas City, 186 Mo. 675, 85 S.W. 572; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 6 S.W. (2d) l.c. 941; Brunn v. Kansas City, 216 Mo. 108, 116 S.W. 446; The Hurlbut Case, 24 Mich. 44. (5) The collection of license taxes is a purely municipal or local affair. See authorities cited under Point (2), supra. (6) The Charter of Kansas City establishes the office of license collector and prescribes his powers and duties. Said charter has the force and effect of a legislative act and having been adopted in 1926, it supersedes the statutes in question which were originally passed in 1901. St. Louis v. Life Assn. of America, 53 Mo. 466; Brunn v. Kansas City, 216 Mo. l.c. 117, 116 S.W. 446; State ex rel. v. Lucas, 317 Mo. 225, 296 S.W. 781; State ex rel. v. Seehorn, 246 Mo. 541, 151 S.W. 716; Land v. Boruff, 295 Mo. 28; Kansas City v. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 87 S.W. (2d) l.c. 201, 337 Mo. 913. (7) Said statutes conflict with paragraphs 2 and 15 of Section 53 of Article IV of the Missouri Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional and void. Hence, the court erred in giving, upon the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to recover under said statutes, in Case No. 474346 and No. 493214, respectively, the findings of facts and conclusions of law requested by plaintiffs as enumerated under Points I and II hereof, and in refusing in each case, defendant's requested declarations of law IV, and VII, offered on the theory that said statutes are unconstitutional and void in that they are local or special laws undertaking to regulate the local affairs of the defendant city and undertaking to create offices and prescribe the powers and duties of officers in said city. State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State ex rel. v. Railway Co., 246 Mo. 512, 152 S.W. 28; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 202 S.W. l.c. 11, 273 Mo. 670. (8) If said statutes are constitutional and do apply to cities operating under a constitutional charter, then the court erred in giving, in Case No. 474346, plaintiff's requested conclusions of law and findings of fact as enumerated under Points (1) and (2) hereof, and in refusing to give defendant's requested declarations of law 7A and 8 — this for the reason: that the statutes provide for only twelve clerks in the office of license collector and the appointment of any number in excess thereof would be void. Likewise, the appointment to positions not named in said statutes would also be void. (9) Interest is not recoverable upon these claims from the date of filing suit. Hence the court erred in giving, at the request of the plaintiffs, declaration of law IV to the effect that plaintiffs were entitled to recover interest and in refusing defendant's declaration of law that interest was not recoverable on said claims. This for the reason: that interest on said claims was not recoverable at common law and they are not of the class or character named in Sec. 3226, R.S. 1939, or in any other statute of the state for which interest is recoverable. Sec. 3226, R.S. 1939; Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, 192 S.W. 394; King v. Riverland Levee Dist., 218 Mo. App. 490, 279 S.W. 195; 1 Words & Phrases, pp. 534, 535; McManus v. Burrows, 206 Mo. App. 528, 230 S.W. 129; 37 C.J., p. 786, sec. 126; 2 McQuillin, Mun. Corps. (2 Ed.), sec. 534; Givens v. Daviess County, 107 Mo. 603, 17 S.W. 998; State ex rel. Chapman v. Walbridge, 153 Mo. 194, 54 S.W. 447; Gambrel v. City of Sacramento, 110 Pac. (2d) 530; Griffin v. County Clay, 63 Iowa, 413, 19 N.W. 327; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Thompson v. School District, 71 Mo. 495; State ex rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 345 Mo. 1002, 137 S.W. (2d) 532.

Reed & Ingraham and Burr S. Stottle for appellee-appellant, Burr S. Stottle, Trustee.

(1) Secs. 7725-7734, R.S. 1939, are constitutional. Secs. 7725-7734, R.S. 1939; Sec. 10, Art. X, Mo. Const.; Sec. 16, Art. IX, Mo. Const.; Sec. 53, Art. IV, Mo. Const.; J.I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Kansas City, 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W. (2d) 195; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; Siemens v. Shreeve, 317 Mo. 736, 296 S.W. 416; Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. St. Louis, 341 Mo. 62, 106 S.W. (2d) 435; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W. (2d) 713; Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 479, 27 S.W. 711; West Coast Advertising Co. v. City, 95 Pac. (2d) 138; O'Connor v. City of Laredo, 167 S.W. 1091; Milliken v. Meyers, 144 Pac. 321; Kansas City Grading Co. v. Holden, 107 Mo. 304; People v. Village of Pelham, 215 N.Y. 374, 109 N.E. 513; State ex rel. Zoological Board v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 910, 1 S.W. (2d) 1021; Taylor v. Brown, 137 F. (2d) 654; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State ex rel. v. Railway Co., 246 Mo. 512. (2) Secs. 7725-7734, R.S. 1939, are applicable to Kansas City, Missouri. Sec. 10, Art. X, Mo. Const.; Sec. 16, Art. IX, Mo. Const.; Chap. 28, R.S. 1939, on Municipal Corporations; Secs. 7725-34, R.S. 1939; Sec. 7596, R.S. 1919; J.I. Case Threshing Mch. Co. v. Kansas City, 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W. (2d) 195; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 383; Siemens v. Shreeve, 317 Mo. 736, 296 S.W. 416; Ex parte Tarling, 241 S.W. 929; Taylor v. Brown, 137 F. (2d) 654; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51, 175 S.W. 591; State ex rel. Volker v. Kirby, 345 Mo. 801, 136 S.W. (2d) 319; State ex rel. Volker v. Carey, 345 Mo. 811, 136 S.W. (2d) 324; State ex rel. v. Telephone Co., 189 Mo. 83, 88 S.W. 41; State ex rel. Zoological Board v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 910, 1 S.W. (2d) 1021; Wippler v. Hohn, 341 Mo. 780, 110 S.W. (2d) 409; Kroger...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor, No. 16197
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1985
    ...State v. Stout, 142 W.Va. 182, 187, 95 S.E.2d 639, 642, 59 A.L.R.2d 1154, 1158 (1956). See also Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 182 S.W.2d 74 (1944) (en banc); Cooley v. Roman, 286 Or. 807, 596 P.2d 565 (1979); Call of Houston, Inc. v. Mulvey, 343 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); 1 Am.Ju......
  • City of Hannibal v. Winchester, No. 50068
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1965
    ...rules established by the cases of State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 182 S.W.2d 74, and Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W.2d 195. Page 294 Analyzing and quoting from these cases, Mr. Schman......
  • State ex rel. Spink v. Kemp, No. 44534
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1955
    ...80 Mo.App. 206, 219. See also same case, 184 Mo. 109, 133-134, 71 S.W. 215, 220, 88 S.W. 27; Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 161, 182 S.W.2d 74, In State ex rel. Carpenter v. City of St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, 721, we said: 'The cases construing the police laws are in point.......
  • Davis v. Laclede Gas Co., No. 61011.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 9, 1980
    ...292 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Mo.1956); Hunter v. Hunter, 361 Mo. 799, 804, 237 S.W.2d 100, 103 (1951); Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 163, 182 S.W.2d 74, 78 (banc 1944); Baron v. Kurn, 349 Mo. 1202, 164 S.W.2d 310, 316 (1942). The decisions of our courts of appeal are in accord with the princip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor, No. 16197
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1985
    ...State v. Stout, 142 W.Va. 182, 187, 95 S.E.2d 639, 642, 59 A.L.R.2d 1154, 1158 (1956). See also Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 182 S.W.2d 74 (1944) (en banc); Cooley v. Roman, 286 Or. 807, 596 P.2d 565 (1979); Call of Houston, Inc. v. Mulvey, 343 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); 1 Am.Ju......
  • City of Hannibal v. Winchester, No. 50068
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1965
    ...rules established by the cases of State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 182 S.W.2d 74, and Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W.2d 195. Page 294 Analyzing and quoting from these cases, Mr. Schman......
  • State ex rel. Spink v. Kemp, No. 44534
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1955
    ...80 Mo.App. 206, 219. See also same case, 184 Mo. 109, 133-134, 71 S.W. 215, 220, 88 S.W. 27; Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 161, 182 S.W.2d 74, In State ex rel. Carpenter v. City of St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, 721, we said: 'The cases construing the police laws are in point.......
  • Davis v. Laclede Gas Co., No. 61011.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 9, 1980
    ...292 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Mo.1956); Hunter v. Hunter, 361 Mo. 799, 804, 237 S.W.2d 100, 103 (1951); Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 163, 182 S.W.2d 74, 78 (banc 1944); Baron v. Kurn, 349 Mo. 1202, 164 S.W.2d 310, 316 (1942). The decisions of our courts of appeal are in accord with the princip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT