Gladstone Special Road Dist. of Clay County v. County Court of Clay County

• Decision Date: 09 July 1956
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 45038,45038,2
• Citation: 365 Mo. 1097,293 S.W.2d 351
• Parties: In the Matter of the GLADSTONE SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT OF CLAY COUNTY, Missouri, Respondent, v. The COUNTY COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, Missouri, Judge L. M. Bywaters, Judge Noah Hart and Judge Ford White, Judges of the County Court of Clay County, Missouri, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 351

293 S.W.2d 351

365 Mo. 1097

In the Matter of the GLADSTONE SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT OF CLAY COUNTY, Missouri, Respondent, v. The COUNTY COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, Missouri, Judge L. M Bywaters, Judge Noah Hart and Judge Ford White Judges of the County Court of Clay County, Missouri, Appellants.

No. 45038.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

July 9, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1956.

Francis G. Hale, Robert E. Coleberd, Liberty, for appellants. Arthur R. Kincaid, William B. Waters, Martin E. Lawson, Liberty, of counsel.

Williams & Norton, North Kansas City, for respondent.

BOHLING, Commissioner.

This is a declaratory judgment action by the Gladstone Special Road District of Clay County, Missouri, against the County Court of Clay County, Missouri, Judge L. M. Bywaters, Judge Noah Hart and Judge Ford White, Judges of the County Court of Clay County, Missouri. The boundaries of plaintiff coincide with the boundaries of the City of Gladstone; and the issue presented by the parties is whether it is the duty of the county court to credit and pay to plaintiff four-fifths of the road and bridge taxes collected upon property within plaintiff's boundaries, as contended by plaintiff, or only one-fourth of said four-fifths, as contended by defendants. The judgment was for plaintiff. Defendants have appealed.

The case involves 'the construction of the revenue laws of this state' and we have appellate jurisdiction. Mo.Const. Art. V, Sec. 3, V.A.M.S.; Lamaar Township v. City of Lamar, 261 Mo. 171, 177, 169 S.W. 12, Ann.Cas.1916D, 740; Wright County ex rel. Elk Creek Tp. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bk., Mo., 30 S.W.2d 32, 33. See also T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Allen, 318 Mo. 440, 330 S.W. 486.

The case was submitted on the following stipulation (formal recitals omitted):

'1. That defendants L. M. Bywaters, Noah Hart and Ford White are the Judges of the County Court of Clay County, State of Missouri.

'2. That Gladstone Special Road District of Clay County, plaintiff herein, was duly organized and formed April 7, 1954, under Sections 233.010 to 233.165 M.R.S.1949 [V.A.M.S.]; that said Special Road District is confined geographically to the city limits of the City of Gladstone, a fourth class city which was incorporated November 19, 1952, under the laws of the State of Missouri; that said city will be completely surrounded by the City of Kansas City, Missouri, on January 1, 1959, and thereafter.

'3. That 80 per cent of the taxes collected under Section 233.125 M.R.S.1949 in said Special Road District to February 28, 1955, aggregate the sum of $9138.88; that 25 per cent thereof, namely: The sum of $2284.72 has been set aside by the county treasurer in Special Road District No. 6 Fund, which is plaintiff Special Road District; that 75 per cent of said fund, namely: The sum of $6854.16 has been deposited in an escrow account by said county treasurer to await the outcome of this particular litigation.

'4. That plaintiff herein has demanded that defendants herein pay over to plaintiff the aggregate amount of said taxes, namely: The sum of $9138.88; that defendants have refused to comply with plaintiff's request.'

We quote (emphasis ours) Secs. 233.125, 137.555, 233.095 and 233.100. (Statutory references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. unless otherwise indicated.)

Section 233.125 provides: 'In all counties in this state where a special road district * * * has * * * been organized * * * under sections 233.010 to 233.165, and where money shall be collected for road and bridge purposes under the provisions of section 137.555 upon property within such special road district * * * or where money shall be collected for pool or billiard table licenses upon any business within such special road district, * * * the county court shall, as such taxes or licenses are paid and collected, apportion and set aside to the credit of such special road district * * * from which said taxes were collected, four-fifths of such part or portion of said road and bridge tax so arising from and collected and paid upon any property lying and being within any such special road district, * * * and also one-half of the amount collected for pool and billiard table licenses so collected from such business carried on or conducted within the limits of such special road district; and the county court shall upon application by said commissioners of such special road district * * * draw warrants upon the county treasurer, payable to the commissioners of such special road district * * * or the treasury thereof, for four-fifths of such part or portion of said road and bridge tax so collected upon property lying and being within such special road district, * * * and also one-half of the amount collected for pool and billiard table licenses so collected from such business carried on or conducted within the limits of such special road district * * *.'

Section 137.555 provides: '* * * the county court * * * may levy an additional tax, not exceeding thirty-five cents on each one hundred dollars assessed valuation, all of such tax to be collected and turned into the county treasury, where it shall be known * * * as 'The Special Road and Bridge Fund' to be used for road and bridge purposes and for no other purpose whatever; provided, however, that all that part or portion of said tax which shall arise from and be collected and paid upon any property lying and being within any special road district shall be paid into the county treasury and four-fifths of such part or portion of said tax so arising from and collected and paid upon any property lying and being within any such special road district shall be placed to the credit of such special road district from which it arose and shall be paid out to such special road district upon warrants of the county court, in favor of the commissioners or treasurer of the district as the case may be; provided further, that * * * the one-fifth part retained in the county treasury may, in the discretion of the county court, be used in improving or repairing any street in any incorporated city or village in the county, if said street shall form a part of a continuous highway of said county leading through such city or village.'

Section 233.095 provides: 'Said board shall have outhority to expend not more than one-fourth of the revenue * * * paid into its treasury for the purpose of grading and repairing any roads or streets within the corporate limits of any city within said special road district in conformity with the established grade of said roads and streets in said cities and for the purpose of constructing and maintaining macadam, gravel, rock or paved roads or streets within the corporate limits of any city within the said special road district in conformity with the established grade of said roads and streets in said city * * *.'

Section 233.100 provides: 'Said boards may repair, grade, gravel, macadamize or pave any road in its district but nothing herein shall be taken or construed as enlarging the powers of the boards to expend money upon roads and streets within the corporate limits of any city within said special road district as limited by section 233.095.'

The court found, so far as material here, that under Sec. 233.125 the county court was required to pay to plaintiff four-fifths of the road and bridge tax collected upon property within plaintiff district and one-half of the pool and billiard table licenses collected within plaintiff district; that the enforcement of Secs. 233.095 and 233.100 against plaintiff would cause an absurd result in that plaintiff would accumulate large sums of money without any possible means of using the same; that Secs. 233.095 and 233.100 were not applicable to plaintiff 'because they are ambiguous and doubtful in their application to this plaintiff and said sections clearly contemplate a road district continuing a rural area, which is not existent in this instance,' and that plaintiff could spend its entire income on grading and repairing roads and streets in the City of Gladstone. Judgment was entered ordering defendants to pay to plaintiff the...