Douglass v. Ray
| Decision Date | 20 December 1917 |
| Citation | 199 S.W. 568,199 Mo.App. 24 |
| Parties | T. J. DOUGLASS, Appellant, v. W. T. RAY, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court.--Hon. W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. (with directions).
L. R Jones for appellant.
John T McKay for respondent.
FARRINGTON J. Sturgis, P. J., concurs. Bradley, J., having been of counsel, not sitting.
This suit is by T. J. Douglass, formerly collector of revenue of Dunklin county, against W. T. Ray, his successor in office, to collect four per cent commission on delinquent taxes paid the latter but for which suits had been instituted by Douglass while still in office. Appellant contends that he is entitled to receive the full four per cent commission under his construction of certain sections of our revenue laws, to-wit, sections 11481, 11484, 11486, 11488, 11489, 11490, 11491, 11493, 11494, 11495, 11497, 11498, 11505 and 11511, Revised Statutes 1909, and Session Laws 1913, page 322, section 3, and the issue is sharply drawn by respondent's denial of the construction contended for.
We were first impressed with the idea that to dispose of this case required a construction on our part of the revenue laws so as to vest the jurisdiction of this appeal in the Supreme Court under section 5 of the Amendment of 1884 of article 6 of our Constitution. The question, however, has been recently reviewed in the case of State ex rel. Hadley v. Adkins, 221 Mo. 112, 119 S.W. 1091, where a number of Missouri cases are discussed which hold that in order to confer appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court "revenue must be directly and primarily concerned, not merely indirectly or as an incident." The only case we have found where there was a disposition of the commissions due a collector on delinquent taxes wherein the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction, is that of State ex rel. Shannon County v. Hawkins, 169 Mo. 615, 70 S.W. 119. However, on reading that opinion it will be seen that the question for decision was whether the penalty of four per cent was a part of the revenue or whether it was to be treated as costs and penalty, which necessarily involved a construction of the revenue laws within the meaning of the Constitution. In our case the only question to be decided is whether this four per cent penalty--which has been held in the case last above cited not to be revenue--shall go to the collector who actually received the money paid by delinquent taxpayers against whom suits had been instituted by his predecessor, or whether it belongs to the collector who instituted the suits. It is clear that the jurisdiction of this appeal is with us.
The proposition as to who the four per cent belongs to has been definitely decided by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Watson v. Schnecko, 13 Mo.App. 208, and the opinion in that case answers the argument made by the respondent in the brief presented here.
It is stated in the case of State ex rel. Shannon County v Hawkins, supra, l. c. 620, that where the collector collects back taxes he will be allowed certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial