Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Bates County v. Bates County
Decision Date | 16 December 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 19240.,19240. |
Citation | 269 Mo. 78,189 S.W. 1176 |
Parties | DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1 OF BATES COUNTY v. BATES COUNTY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; Charles A. Calvird, Judge.
Action by the Drainage District No. 1 of Bates County against Bates County. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Thos. J. Smith, of Butler, and W. T. Rutherford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. De Witt C. Chastain, of Butler, for respondent.
In the brief here the plaintiff (appellant) very fairly outlines the case thus:
It should be added, in order that things be made plain, the petition seeks to recover a general judgment against the county, and does not seek to enforce a lien against the public roads involved. The prayer of the petition, which is as comprehensive as the petition reads:
"Wherefore, the premises considered, the plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant, Bates county, for the aggregate amount of said assessments, with interest thereon from the respective dates when they became due and payable at the rate of 1 per cent. per month, and for plaintiff's costs in this behalf expended."
We make this clear because it simplifies issues, and eliminates a disputed question in this court. Construction Co. v. Railroad, 240 Mo. 650, and loc. cit. 656, 144 S. W. 1086. Points raised will be noted in the opinion.
I. It is said in defendant's brief, "The public roads are not subject to sale under execution," and for that reason the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment enforcing the tax bill pleaded in the petition. This question, if it were in the case, would be an interesting one, because this court, when the question was last before us, was much divided. Construction Co. v. Railroad, 240 Mo. 650-656, 144 S. W. 1086. Personally I adhere to the views expressed in the dissent in that case. That dissent is opposed to the views expressed in Construction Co. v. Wabash Ry. Co., 206 Mo. loc. cit. 189, 104 S. W. 67, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 112, 121 Am. St. Rep. 649, 12 Ann. Cas. 630, cited by appellant. In other words, I am of the view that public policy, precludes a judgment to enforce a lien against a segment of a public highway or a railroad. But that question is not really in this case. The petition in this case does not seek such a judgment, but, on the contrary, seeks a general judgment against the county. Plaintiff does not ask for a lien or the enforcement of a lien. Under the instant petition the only question is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a general judgment against the county for these assessments made for conceived benefits to the public roads of the county.
II. Nor need we stop to debate the question as to whether or not the Legislature may authorize the collection of these special assessments by a general judgment, payable out of the general revenue of the county. Such assessments are not "taxes" in the general acceptation of that term, nor in the legal acceptation of that term. They are in fact and in law assessments made for benefits received by the property by reason of a public improvement. Much public property is exempted from ordinary taxes, but this does not argue much here. In our judgment the Legislature could say that public property may be benefited by public improvements, and could further say that for such benefits an assessment should be made, and the municipality be made to respondent by a general judgment to be paid out of funds in the general treasury. Black, P. J., in City of Clinton v. Henry County, 115 Mo. loc. cit. 570, 22 S. W. 496, 37 Am. St. Rep. 415, so concedes. In that case, he, after reviewing our case law, and after holding that special assessments, under our law, can only be collected by enforcing the lien against the property, adds:
That case was a carefully considered one, and whilst the suit, unlike the one at bar, did not seek a general judgment, yet the language used states the good sense of the thing, and, in our judgment, is the law.
The only and vital question in the case at bar is whether or not the Legislature as to these assessments against a county has provided a right and a remedy in favor of the drainage district, which will authorize a general judgment, against the county, and one enforceable by general execution or other legal means, excluding, of course, the enforcement of a lien against the public roads, Of that question next.
III. A further proposition urged is not troublesome. In appellant's brief it is said:
"Whenever the statute or organic law creates a right, but is silent as to the remedy, the party entitled to the right may resort to any common-law action which will afford him adequate and appropriate means of redress."
The foregoing is the generally accepted doctrine. The question in this case is, What right has been created by the Legislature? Assessments of benefits and their methods of enforcement are purely creatures of statutes. So whilst cases from other states may enlighten us as to the construction to be given to our own statutes, when such cases have arisen under similar statutes, yet primarily we must seek the right for a general judgment for such assessment from the terms of our own statutes. If these give no such right, then we cannot read it into them. If the Legislature has failed to give the right, we cannot give it, for our duties are judicial, and not legislative. We are again driven to the question, What right has the Legislature given these drainage districts to collect special assessments by a general judgment?
IV. Upon the question of the statutory right counsel for appellant cite us to section 5591, R. S. 1909, which reads:
"When any ditch established under the provisions of this article drains, either in whole or in part, or benefits any public or corporate road or railroad, the viewers shall apportion to the county, if a county or state or free turnpike road, or if a corporate road or railroad, to the company owning, operating or controlling the same, the same proportion of the cost of location and construction of the improvement in proportion to the benefits received as to private individuals."
On the other hand, counsel for respondent cite us to section 5599, R. S. 1909, the applicable portion of which reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Fairfax Drainage Dist., 38.
......v. . FAIRFAX DRAINAGE DIST. OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KAN. * . No. 38. . Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth ... said improvements amounted approximately to the sum of $1,074,812.58. That these costs were paid for by the issuance ...No. 1 of Bates County v. Bates County, 269 Mo. 78, 189 S. W. 1176, 1177; ......
-
Norborne Land Drain. Dist. v. Egypt Township, 29691.
... . 31 S.W.2d 201 . NORBORNE LAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT COMPANY OF CARROLL COUNTY . v. . EGYPT .... (1) The district is without power to levy any taxes ...1, 317 Mo. 933; Bates County case, 269 Mo. 78. . S.J. ......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte
......Louis County, Missouri No. 38046 Supreme Court of Missouri ... relators. . . (1) The. Supreme Court of Missouri has jurisdiction ...402; Normandy Consolidated School Dist. v. Wellston Sewer Dist., 77 S.W.2d 477. (7) ...J. 193. (3) The formation of sewer or drainage districts is an. exercise of the police power ...554, 128 S.W. 827; State ex rel. v. Bates, . 235 Mo. 293, 138 S.W. 482. (4) The judgment ......
-
Norborne Land Drainage Dist. Co. of Carroll County v. Cherry Valley Tp., of Carroll County
...... A. Kitchen for appellants; Henry Depping of. counsel. . . (1) The. district is without power to levy any taxes against the. highways in the defendant ... Commission. Harrison County case, 297 S.W. 1, 317 Mo. 933;. Bates County case, 269 Mo. 78. . . S. J. & G. C. Jones and Franken & Timmons ......