Greeley v. The Provident Savings Bank

• Decision Date: 01 April 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 980,98 Mo. 458
• Parties: Greeley v. The Provident Savings Bank et al.; Sexton, Collector, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 980

98 Mo. 458

Greeley v. The Provident Savings Bank et al.;

Sexton, Collector, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 1, 1889

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Geo. W. Lubke Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Leverett Bell for appellant.

Under the facts and the law of this case, the collector of taxes of St. Louis was entitled to the order prayed for, directing the receiver of the Provident Savings Bank, to pay the tax bill for 1886. R. S. 1879, secs. 6716, 6751, 6754; Laws of 1881 p. 180; State v. Rowse, 49 Mo. 586; Trust Co. v Railroad, 117 U.S. 434; Trust Co. v. Railroad, 13 Cent. Rep. 404.

Boyle, Adams & McKeighan for respondent.

(1) The demand of the collector was for personal taxes (not taxes on real estate, as to which different rules apply) and therefore is subject to the general policy of the state in respect to limitation of personal actions. The maxim nullum tempus occurrit regi does not apply and cannot be invoked as determinative of general policy. R. S. 1879, sec. 3253. (2) The taxes sued for in this action were assessed against personal property only. And for the payment of these taxes the state had no statutory lien. R. S. 1879, sec. 6754; State v. Goodnow, 80 Mo. 271-5; Carondelet v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125.

OPINION

Brace, J.

In an action in the St. Louis circuit court, wherein Carlos S. Greeley is plaintiff and the Provident Savings Bank et al. are defendants, respondent W. H. Thompson was appointed receiver of the assets and property of said bank. On the fifth of January, 1887, the appellant, collector of taxes, intervened in said cause by petition, setting forth that he held a tax bill for the year 1886, against the personal property of the Provident Savings Bank amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $ 2,918.22, and praying the court to make an order requiring the receiver to pay the same. On the seventh of October, 1886, the court had made an order requiring all persons having demands against the assets in the hands of the receiver to intervene on or before the first day of the December term, 1886, otherwise their claims would be forever barred. The court refused to make the order for the payment of the taxes on the ground that the collector failed to intervene with his demand within the time prescribed by said order of October 7.

The amount of the taxes was undisputed, and the receiver had in his hands funds sufficient to pay them, and we think the order should have been made. It may be conceded that the state did not have an express lien upon the assets that went into the hands of the receiver, but it had a...