Deuser v. St. Louis County
Decision Date | 04 June 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 38947.,38947. |
Citation | 188 S.W.2d 25 |
Parties | PHIL G. DEUSER, Assessor of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI; ARTHUR W. SCHMID, HENRY W.J. ROTT, and HENRY L. MUELLER, Judges of the County Court of St. Louis County, Missouri; and ROY McKITTRICK, Attorney General for the State of Missouri. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County. — Hon. John A. Witthaus, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Walter Wehrle, Herbert W. Ziercher and A.E.L. Gardner for appellant.
(1) The County Assessor of St. Louis County, Missouri, is entitled to retain for his own use and as compensation to him the balance in cash remaining in his hands after deducting clerk hire and expenses from the fees paid to him by the State Treasurer and for the assessing and listing of the income tax as is provided in Section 11364, Revised Statutes 1939. Secs. 10996, 11364, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. v. Pohlman, 60 Mo. App. 444; Groesbeck v. Auditor General, and Gorman v. Auditor General, 216 Mich. 243; State ex rel. Seattle v. Carson, 6 Wash. 250; Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 325 Mo. 493, 29 S.W. (2d) 716. (2) The duties of the assessor in listing, assessing and collecting of state income taxes are not incident to the office of county assessor, nor are such duties performed by virtue of such office. Sec. 11364, R.S. 1939; Art. II, Chap. 74, Secs. 10943, 11000, R.S. 1939; Sec. 13528 et seq., R.S. 1939; Art. 21, Chap. 74, R.S. 1939, Secs. 11343, 11377; Secs. 11353, 11354, 11355, 11363, 11364, 11365, 13528, 13531, 13532, 13537; Black on Income Taxes, secs. 1, 2 and 3; Cooley on Taxation, secs. 1741, 1742; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. l.c. 491; Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Woolbrinck, 275 Mo. 351; State ex rel. v. Pohlman, 60 Mo. App. 444; 22 R.C.L., pp. 534, 535, sec. 229; Moore v. Moore, 147 Va. 460; 21 A.L.R., pp. 258, 259; State ex rel. Harvey v. Sheehan, 269 Mo. 421; State ex rel. Seattle v. Carson, 6 Wash. 250; County v. Felts, 104 Cal. 60; Lewis v. State, 11 Ohio 647, 21 Ohio 410; Tayloe v. Davis, 212 Ala. 282; Throop on Public Officers, secs. 490-492; Love v. Bachr. 47 Cal. 364; Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 325 Mo. 502.
Erwin F. Velter, City Counselor of St. Louis County, for respondents.
(1) The fees or salary of an executive or ministerial officer of any county shall not exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars for any one year. Sec. 13, Art. IX. Mo. Constitution; Secs. 11364, 13537, R.S. 1939; Harrington v. St. Louis, 107 Mo. 327, 17 S.W. 897; Kenefick v. St. Louis, 127 Mo. 1, 29 S.W. 838; State ex rel. v. King, 136 Mo. 309, 36 S.W. 681; State ex rel. Saline County v. Price, 296 Mo. 121, 246 S.W. 572; Smith v. Pettis County, 345 Mo. 839, 136 S.W. (2d) 282; Greene County v. Lydy, 263 Mo. 77, 172 S.W. 376; State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 187 S.W. 257; State ex rel. v. Pohlman, 60 Mo. App. 444. (2) In counties having more than 200,000 inhabitants a county officer may not at the same time also serve as a state officer. Sec. 18, Art. IX, Mo. Constitution.
The question for determination is whether the assessor of a county having between 200,000 and 400,000 inhabitants and who has been paid his salary in full (Sec. 13528*) may retain as his own the fees (sec. 11364) received by him from the State of Missouri (over and above the expenses incurred) for work performed in the assessing and collecting of the State income tax. Phil G. Deuser as Assessor of St. Louis county instituted the action against said County and appeals from an adverse declaratory judgment. We think the court ruled correctly.
The record shows that for the fiscal year June, 1941, to June, 1942, the Assessor, in addition to his salary of $8,750, under Sec. 13528, received $10,058.22 from the State of Missouri under Sec. 11364. He incurred expenses in performing said work aggregating $3,419.77. . The dispute between the Assessor and the County is over the balance: $6,638.45.
The Assessor stresses Sec. 11364 a section of the article on "Taxation of Incomes" (Art. 21, Chap. 74), providing:
"Assessors and collectors shall be compensated in like manner and in like amounts as for the assessments of other taxes: Provided, that in counties in which the assessors and collectors are paid a fixed salary, that in addition to the salary paid, they shall be permitted to charge for work performed in the assessing and collecting of the income tax, as provided by this article, the same fees as are charged by assessors and collectors whose salary is not fixed by law, and which fees so charged by said assessors and collectors for services rendered in assessing and collecting income tax shall be paid by the state."
Section 10996 of Art. 2 of Chap. 74 makes provision for the compensation of assessors with respect to "other taxes."
Section 11364 originated in 1917 as Sec. 19 of Senate Bill 415 (Laws 1917, p. 524), reading: "Assessors shall be compensated in like manner and in like amounts as for the assessment of other taxes." In 1919 certain sections of said Act were repealed and new sections enacted in lieu thereof (Laws 1919, p. 721, Sec. 19). resulting in said section reading as now (Sec. 11364, supra).
The County stresses Secs. 13528 and 13537 (sections within Art. 9 of Chap. 99) and Sec. 13 of Art. 9 of the Missouri constitution. Section 13528 specifies the annual salaries for enumerated county officers; providing $8,750 for the Assessor. Said Sec. 13537 reads:
We think the court nisi, although the point is not expressly stressed here, must have considered that the provisions of Art. 9 of Chap. 99 (Secs. 13528-13538) supplanted the provisions of Sec. 11364 ( ) in so far as involved in this proceeding. Said Art. 9 was first enacted in 1939 (Laws 1939, p. 679), some twenty years after the enactment of Sec. 11364, and sought to establish the salaries of county officers in counties of between 200,000 and 400,000 inhabitants. Readily apparent, inconsistencies and conflicts existed between the provisions of said Art. 9 and the then existing statutes. Our concern is with conflicts involving charges for work connected with the State income tax by the assessor. Law should be harmonious. No one would know what the law is if inconsistent and conflicting statutes be regarded as having equal force. Their administration, if possible, would result in intolerable situations. The General Assembly passed said Art. 9 after due deliberation and with full knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject. The article evidences a legislative intent to put the mentioned officers on a stated salary basis. For instance, the title* informed the law-maker it was: "An Act fixing the salaries of county officers in" specified counties; "providing ... for the payment by the State to the county of fees earned by... the Assessor ... providing for the disposition of excess fees or commissions, and providing for all salaries of county officers and employees to be in full and in lieu of all other fees, commissions and emoluments." The provisions of Art. 2 of Chap. 74 (Secs. 10943-11000, relating to the duties, salaries et cetera of assessors generally) and of Sec. 11364 under review are general in their nature. They, under their express terms, apply to all assessors. The provisions of Art. 9 of Chap. 99 are of limited application. Inconsistences and conflicts between said Art. 9, on the one hand, and said Art. 2 of Chap. 74 and Sec. 11364, on the other, were known to the General Assembly and Sec. 13538 provided in general terms for the repeal of "all laws, or parts of laws inconsistent or in conflict with any provisions" of said Art. 9. The laws so far as here involved relate to the same subject matter and have the same purpose — the compensation of assessors of specified counties. The enactment of said Art 9 created a new, entire, and independent system with respect to the salaries of assessors in the specified counties. Repeals by implication are not favored, but here the General Assembly considered the new article superseded all previous systems and laws respecting the same subject matter and gave expression to that understanding.
Section 13537 (quoted supra) is in full accord with the title of the Act. Its first sentence makes the salaries mentioned in Sec. 13528 "in full of all services rendered by virtue of said offices." This is in harmony with the statement in the title (see Mo. Const. Art. 4, Sec. 28) of the Act (Laws 1939, p. 679) that the salaries therein provided for are "to be in full and in lieu of all other fees, commissions and emoluments." No fee, commission or emolument is excepted in the title. None is excepted in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial