First Trust Co. of St. Joseph v. Wells

• Citation: 23 S.W.2d 108,324 Mo. 306
• Decision Date: 30 December 1929
• Docket Number: 29573
• Parties: First Trust Company of St. Joseph v. Jim Wells, Collector of Revenue of Buchanan County, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 S.W.2d 108

324 Mo. 306

First Trust Company of St. Joseph v. Jim Wells, Collector of Revenue of Buchanan County, Appellant

No. 29573

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 30, 1929

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court; Hon. L. A. Vories Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and William Reiter and L. Cunningham for appellant.

(1) The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended petition. (a) While the plaintiff makes no complaint in its amended petition as to the judgment of the State Board of Equalization, yet the purpose and effect of the action is to vacate and annul the judgment of the state board, and the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. State ex rel. Gardner v. Harris, 286 Mo. 262; State ex rel. v. Hall, 221 S.W. 708. (b) The plaintiff had a complete and adequate remedy at law by application to the State Tax Commission if the assessment of its shares of stock was improper, and having failed to avail itself of such remedy, it is not entitled to equitable relief by injunction. Secs. 12847 12848, R. S. 1919; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co v. Hill, 323 Mo. 180. (c) If the extension of the valuation of shares of stock on the personal assessment book and the taxes levied thereon were illegal, the plaintiff had a complete and adequate remedy at law by resisting the action if sued for the taxes. Injunction will not lie where the plaintiff has a complete and adequate remedy at law. 34 C. J. 436, par. 685; Nat. Bank v. Staats, 155 Mo. 55; Meyer v. Rosenblatt, 78 Mo. 495; State ex rel. v. Bank of Neosho, 120 Mo. 161; State ex rel. Johnson v. Bank, 279 Mo. 228; State ex rel. Gardner v. Harris, 286 Mo. 262; State ex rel. Mt. Mora Cemetery Assn. v. Casey, 210 Mo. 235. (d) The decision of the State Board of Equalization is the finality of an assessment. Laclede Land & Improvement Co. v. State Tax Comm., 295 Mo. 298. When the State Board of Equalization acted, the assessment for the year became complete and further action as to changing the assessed value could not be had. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; Sec. 12849, R. S. 1919. The secretary of the State Tax Commission was ex officio secretary of the State Board of Equalization. Secs. 12842 and 12854, R. S. 1919. (e) Upon receipt of the statement from the secretary of the State Tax Commission, the county board of equalization and county board of appeals having adjourned, it became the duty of the clerk of the county court to adjust the tax books according to such report. Sec. 12826, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Thompson v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. Thompson v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38. (f) The clerk of the county court, under Sec. 12826, R. S. 1919, performs a ministerial act in carrying into execution the report of the State Board of Equalization and extending the valuation as fixed by it. Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021; State ex rel. v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603; State ex rel. v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 38. (2) It is not necessary to give notice to a taxpayer of the general increase made or to be made by the State Board of Equalization. The time and place of meeting of said board is fixed by Sec. 12854, R. S. 1919, and the record of said board made during its session is sufficient notice to comply with the due-process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri. Secs. 12854, 12855, R. S. 1919; Black v. McGonigle, 103 Mo. 192; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 120; State ex rel. Dalton v. Baker, 170 Mo. 383; Hammond v. Winder, 100 Ohio St. 433; Scammon v. Chicago, 44 Ill. 269; People ex rel. Bracher v. Orvis, 301 Ill. 350; Hubbard v. Goss, 157 Ind. 485; People ex rel. Colorado Tax Comm. v. Pitcher, 61 Colo. 149, 156 P. 812; Ogletree v. Woodward, 150 Ga. 691; Foster v. Rowe, 128 Wis. 326, 107 N.W. 635; Pacific Railroad Co. v. County Clerk, 57 Mo. 223; Cornet v. St. Louis, 240 S.W. 107; State R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 609, 23 L.Ed. 672; Bi-Metallic Invest. Co. v. State Board, 239 U.S. 441, 60 L.Ed. 372; Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 331, 29 L.Ed. 416; Pittsburg, etc. Railroad Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421, 38 L.Ed. 1031.

Culver, Phillips & Voorhees for respondent.

(1) Respondent does not question the legality of the order of the State Board of Equalization raising the aggregate assessment of all of the banks and trust companies in Buchanan County for the purpose of equalizing it with the assessment of the same class of property in all of the other counties of the State. Respondent's insistence is that Sec. 12826, R. S. 1919, under which the county clerk assumed to act in raising the respondent's assessment, is violative of Section 1, of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Section 30 of Article II of the Constitution of Missouri in that it fails to provide for any notice or opportunity to the taxpayer to be heard with respect to how much, if any, of the aggregate raised ordered by the State Board of Equalization should be apportioned or added by the county clerk to the assessment of each individual taxpayer; and the act of the county clerk in raising the plaintiff's assessment without in fact giving the plaintiff any notice or opportunity to be heard, deprived it of its property without due process of law. Any system of taxation which provides for the assessment and taxation of property, whether it be an original assessment or an added assessment of omitted property, or an increase in the amount originally assessed, without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard at some time before the assessment becomes conclusive, violates the due-process clause of the Constitution of the United States and is therefore void. Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 65 L.Ed. 134; Central of Ga. Railroad Co. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127, 52 L.Ed. 134; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 52 L.Ed. 1112; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97; State ex rel. Zeigenheim v. Spencer, 114 Mo. 574; Mining Co. v. Neptune, 19 Mo.App. 438. The State Board of Equalization had the power to raise the aggregate assessment of all the banks and trust companies in Buchanan County to equalize it with the assessment of the same class of property in all of the other counties of the State; but it had no power to hear or determine the question as to how the aggregate raise should be apportioned to the individual taxpayers of the county. State ex rel. v. Vaile, 122 Mo. 33; State ex rel. Gardner v. Harris, 286 Mo. 262. (2) Injunction will lie to enjoin the collection of taxes levied without authority of law. (a) It is not necessary to the exercise of equitable relief that plaintiff should not have a remedy at law, but only that such remedy be inadequate or incomplete. Jacobs v. Cauthorn, 293 Mo. 154; Platte Valley Bank v. Farmers & Traders Bank, 14 S.W.2d 20. It is admitted in this case that plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law. (b) Moreover, a court of equity will entertain a bill to enjoin a tax solely because of the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing it, without regard to any special ground of equity jurisdiction or to the existence of an adequate remedy at law. In this State, and practically every state in the Union, the modern rule is that injunction will lie to enjoin the collection of taxes levied without authority of law. 26 R. C. L. 460, 462, secs. 415, 416; Overall v. Ruenzi, 67 Mo. 203; Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300; Arnold v. Hawkins, 95 Mo. 569; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021; Jacobs v. Cauthorn, 293 Mo. 154; Moss Tie Co. v. Allen, 8 S.W.2d 1041. All of the earlier cases cited in appellant's brief holding a contrary doctrine, have been overruled. Jacobs v. Cauthorn, 293 Mo. 161.

OPINION

Ragland, J.

This is an action to enjoin the Collector of the Revenue of Buchanan County from collecting a state and county tax alleged to be void. Defendant demurred to plaintiff's petition and his demurrer was overruled. As he declined to further plead, judgment went in favor of plaintiff granting the relief prayed in the petition. The defendant appealed to this court.

"The salient facts, alleged in the amended petition and admitted by the demurrer, are these:

"The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of this State relating to trust companies. As of June 1, 1926, the plaintiff returned and the Assessor of Buchanan County assessed all the property and capital stock of plaintiff for state, county and school purposes, payable December 31, 1927, at $ 178,020. On that valuation, the total tax owing by plaintiff was $ 3817.45, and that amount was extended upon the tax books. The County Board of Equalization convened as required by law and adjourned finally prior to April 1, 1927, without disturbing the assessment. At the time the county assessor assessed the plaintiff's property and capital stock, he also assessed the property and shares of stock of all other banks and trust companies in said county, some twenty or more in number; the aggregate assessed valuation, including the property and capital stock of the plaintiff, being $ 395,168.

"On April 1, 1927, the State Board of Equalization met and, for the purpose of equalizing the assessed value of the aggregate property of all state banks and trust companies in Buchanan County with the assessed value of the same class of property in other counties in the State, without any notice to the plaintiff, made an order raising the aggregate value of the property and capital stock of all state banks and trust companies in Buchanan County, as returned by the assessor, 14.23%. The County Board of Equalization for Buchanan County having finally adjourned prior to the...