Garden of Eden Drainage Dist. v. Bartlett Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1932
• Docket Number: 30298
• Parties: The Garden of Eden Drainage District v. Bartlett Trust Company et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 S.W.2d 627

330 Mo. 554

The Garden of Eden Drainage District v. Bartlett Trust Company et al., Appellants

No. 30298

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 27, 1932

Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court; Hon. Ralph Hughes Judge.

Affirmed.

Culver Phillip & Voorhees for appellants.

(1) The court erred in not holding void the tax sued for because the Act of 1913 under which the respondent was incorporated is violative of Section 1, of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the power to tax never existed. (a) If the act is unconstitutional, the corporate existence of the respondent can be questioned in the collateral proceeding. 14 C. J. 204, secs. 215, 216; 14 C. J. 214, sec. 223; Tulare Irrigation District v Shepard, 185 U.S. 1, 46 L.Ed. 773; Park Company v. Gibson, 268 Mo. 406; Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 423, 30 L.Ed. 178. (b) The Act of 1913 is violative of Section 1 of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 12 C. J. pp. 1235-6, note 2; Seigler v. S. A. R. Co., 58 A. 599; Elliott v. Wills, 200 N.W. 347; Falbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 41 L.Ed. 369; Drainage District v. Scott, 240 Mo. 31; Hauck v. Drainage District, 248 Mo. 390; Hauck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 274; Drainage District v. Ackley, 270 Mo. 174; Mingo Drainage District v. Wilson, 267 Mo. 277; In re Mingo Drainage District, 267 Mo. 284. (2) The court erred in overruling defendant's motion to abate this suit, and it had no authority to render the judgment that it entered. Sec. 5316, R. S. 1929, Subdiv. 3; Sec. 5338, R. S. 1929.

Sasse & Merrill and S. J. & G. C. Jones for respondent.

(1) Sections 2 and 4 of the Missouri Drainage Law for the year 1913 (now Sections 10743 and 10745, R. S. Mo. 1929), are not violative of Section 1, of Article XIV, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These provisions of the law do not limit an objecting landowner in his answer to the extent claimed by appellant, nor do they any due process of law. In re Mingo Drainage District, 267 Mo. 268; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700. (2) Inasmuch as the Missouri Drainage Laws provide for a full opportunity to any and all objecting landowners to be heard before final judgment, they are immune from constitutional attack. R. S. 1929, section 10757; Hodge v. Muscatine County, 106 U.S. 276, 49 L.Ed. 477; Re Mingo Drainage District, 267 Mo. 268; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliot, 30 F.2d 700. (3) The Missouri Drainage Act in its entirety has been upheld against constitutional attacks in various phases, by both the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Supreme Court of the United States. Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240; State ex rel. v. Hughes, 294 Mo. 1; Houck v. Little River Drain. Dist., 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 266; Charles D. Cole v. Norborne Land Drain. Dist. Co., 270 U.S. 45, 70 L.Ed. 463; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 40 F.2d 351. (4) It is within the power of the State Legislature to create a drainage district directly or it may delegate the power to do so to courts or commissions; and having that power, it follows that the Legislature could prescribe the method of procedure which the courts and commission should follow and could prescribe the course and extent of the articles of association and the answer or objects thereto, and could limit the answer or objections without violating any provision of the Federal Constitution or any amendment thereto. Houck v. Little River D. D., 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 266; Fall Brook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 41 L.Ed. 369; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700. (5) In order to decree the organization of the Garden of Eden Drainage District, it was not necessary that the Legislature provide for the giving of notice to or accord a hearing to the landowners of the district. Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester, 261 U.S. 155, 67 L.Ed. 585; Wagner v. Leser, 239 U.S. 478, 60 L.Ed. 230; Houck v. Little River D. D., 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 266; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. West Crawford Road Imp. District, 266 U.S. 187, 69 L.Ed. 327; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700. (6) This suit is a mere collateral attack on the judgment of the Circuit Court of Chariton County, Missouri, organizing and incorporating the Garden of Eden Drainage District and for that reason cannot be maintained. 19 C. J. 633, sec. 45; Norborne Land Drainage Dist. Co. v. Cherry Valley Twp., 31 S.W.2d 201; State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 215; State ex rel. Jones v. Young, 255 Mo. 627; State v. Shelton, 314 Mo. 347; Barnes v. Mo. Valley Const. Co., 257 Mo. 175. (7) Plaintiff and its predecessor in title by their course of conduct, standing by with full notice and knowledge of the proceedings in the matter of incorporating the district; the sale of the bonds of the district to obtain money to pay the cost of constructing the works and improvements of the district permitting the district to incur the obligations it did incur, were guilty of laches and are now estopped from attacking the validity of the proceedings. Pierce v. Somerset Ry. Co., 171 U.S. 641, 43 L.Ed. 316; Sheppard v. Baron, 194 U.S. 553, 48 L.Ed. 1115; Odea v. Mitchell, 144 Cal. 374, 77 P. 1020; Avery & Sons v. City of Atlanta, 163 Ga. 591, 136 S.E. 789; Bartlett Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700.

Sturgis, C. Ferguson and Hyde, CC., concur.

OPINION

STURGIS

This is a suit based on certain tax bills issued by the plaintiff, an incorporated drainage district of Chariton County, Missouri, against certain lands within said drainage district owned by the defendants. The first count of the petition covers the drainage taxes for the year 1926, and the second count for the year 1927. The suit was commenced in August, 1928, in the Circuit Court of Chariton County, against the Bartlett Trust Company, an incorporated bank, but after a change of venue to Carroll County, where the case was tried, defendant bank having failed and gone into the hands of the State Bank Commissioner, S. L. Cantley, he and his deputy in charge were, by an amended petition with appropriate allegations, made parties defendant and joined in the demurrer and answer.

The plaintiff drainage district was organized and incorporated in about 1917 under the Act of 1913, Laws of Missouri, 1913, pages 232-267, relating to organizing drainage districts by circuit courts (now Art. 1, Chap. 64, R. S. 1929, Secs. 10743, et seq.) This drainage district had been functioning since that time, had accomplished the work of reclamation in large measure, had issued bonds for that purpose under the provisions of that act, and the taxes here in suit were levied for the purpose of maintenance of the drainage system and for paying the interest and installment of bonds falling due in the years 1926 and 1927.

The petition is in usual and proper form and it is conceded that it states facts necessary to constitute a cause of action under the statutes mentioned. The defendant demurred to the petition on the grounds (1) that the statute mentioned under which the plaintiff district was organized and incorporated is violative of Section 1 of Article XIV (the due process of law clause) of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and plaintiff has no right to function as a corporation and levy and collect taxes; (2) that this suit to collect taxes and enforce the lien of the State against the defendant's lands cannot be maintained while the property of the defendant bank is in the hands of the Commissioner of Finance for liquidation.

The demurrer was overruled and the defendants then filed a motion to abate or dismiss the suit on the second ground stated in the demurrer, which was also overruled.

The defendants then filed their answer raising these same issues more in detail and stating the facts more fully than disclosed by the petition.

The trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the amounts prayed for and made same severally in a lien against the various tracts of land as described. No point is made as to the form or amount of the judgment. The defendants have duly appealed.

At the trial the tax bills sued on were put in evidence without objection, making a prima-facie case for plaintiff, and then certain pertinent facts were agreed upon, including, to-wit "that all the steps required by the statutes, and only the steps required by the statutes, to be taken to organize and incorporate a drainage district under the act relating to drainage districts incorporated by circuit courts were taken by the petitioners in this case in the organization of The Garden of Eden Drainage District;" and that if said statutes were valid, "then the drainage district is a valid corporation, the tax sued for is a valid tax, and if the law under which the plaintiff claims to be incorporated is invalid, then there is no drainage district and there is no tax." The defendants also admitted that "the taxes were legally levied and that the amount of the tax levied is as stated in the petition, if the district is legally incorporated;" and that "all proper certificates and returns of officers of the tax being delinquent were made as required by law; and that proper tax bills have been issued and certified to by the proper collector of revenue of Chariton County, Missouri." It was further admitted that at the time the decree incorporating the district was entered, Henry Evernham was the owner of the lands mentioned in the petition; that he executed a deed of trust on the property to secure a loan of $ 10,000; that default was made in the payment of the debt and the mortgage was properly foreclosed, and defendant Bartlett Trust Company became the owner of the land at the sale and is the owner...