Hull v. Baumann

• Decision Date: 21 September 1939
• Docket Number: 36778
• Parties: Laura C. Hull, Appellant, v. William F. Baumann, Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

131 S.W.2d 721

345 Mo. 159

Laura C. Hull, Appellant, v. William F. Baumann, Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis

No. 36778

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 21, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Harry F Russell, Judge.

Affirmed.

McDonald Bartlett & Muldoon for appellant.

(1) House Bill 677, 60th General Assembly, violates the provisions of Section 28, Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri, and is void because it contains more than one subject clearly expressed in its title. (a) The title of an act is the index of its contents. State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1008; State ex rel. v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State v Sloan, 167 S.W. 500; State ex rel. Wells v. Walker, 326 Mo. 1233; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348. (b) When House Bill 677 attempted to amend the Laws of 1933, pages 425-449, the title to that act became the title to the amendatory act. State v. Ranson, 73 Mo. 78; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 441; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8 Ed.), p. 318; Sherrell v. Brantley, 66 S.W.2d 529; State ex rel. Mueller Baking Co. v. Calvird, 92 S.W.2d 184; State ex rel. Wells v. Walker, 326 Mo. 1233; State v. Doering, 194 Mo. 398. (3) When the title to the Laws of 1933, pages 425-449, descended to details and particulars, the subject of House Bill 677, 60th General Assembly, was confined to the limited scope of that title. State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 237 S.W. 742; State ex rel. v. Becker, 329 Mo. 1041; Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45; Groves v. Purcell, 85 S.W.2d 543; State v. Sloan, 167 S.W. 500. (d) The provisions of House Bill 677, 60th General Assembly, go beyond the scope of the title of the Laws of 1933, pages 425-449, which it attempts to amend, and thereby violates the provisions of Article IV, Section 28, of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Walker, 326 Mo. 1233; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; 25 R. C. L. 871; State v. Mullinix, 257 S.W. 121. (2) Article IV, Section 53, and Article X, Section 3, of the Constitution of Missouri prohibits local and special laws on certain subjects. House Bill 677, 60th General Assembly, is a local and special law within the inhibition of the constitutional provisions. It applies solely to the city of St. Louis and the county of St. Louis. (a) The courts take judicial notice of the application of legislation to the several jurisdictions of the State. State ex rel. Moseley v. Lee, 319 Mo. 976; State ex rel. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275; Ruckert v. Richter, 127 Mo.App. 664; State v. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600; State v. Logan, 186 S.W. 979. (b) House Bill 677 is local and special in its application. Bridges v. Mining Co., 252 Mo. 53; State v. Logan, 186 S.W. 979; Rose v. Sullivan, 296 S.W. 815; State ex rel. Kinsey v. Messerly, 198 Mo. 351; State ex rel. Gentry v. Armstrong, 315 Mo. 298. (3) House Bill 677, 60th General Assembly, does not include all cities and counties similarly situated and has no sound and reasonable basis for the classification provided. (a) The courts take judicial notice of the population of the several cities and counties of the State, including those having substantial population. State ex rel. Moseley v. Lee, 319 Mo. 976; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State ex rel. v. Mazuch, 68 S.W.2d 923; Kansas City ex rel. v. Robinson, 32 S.W.2d 1075; State ex rel. Garasche v. Drabelle, 258 Mo. 568; Heather v. Palmyra, 276 S.W. 872; State ex rel. Major v. Ryan, 232 Mo. 77.

James A. Waechter and Donald Gunn for respondent; Edgar H. Wayman and Andrew J. Reis of counsel.

(1) House Bill 677 conforms with and does not violate Section 28, Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri, which provides that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. Laws 1933, p. 425; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W.2d 543; State ex rel. Van Brown v. Shepard, 74 Mo. 310; Ward v. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo. 309, 36 S.W. 648; Brown v. State, 323 Mo. 138, 19 S.W.2d 12; State ex rel. School District v. Miller, 326 Mo. 830, 33 S.W.2d 122; State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston, 332 Mo. 547, 87 S.W.2d 147; State ex inf. Crain v. Moore, 339 Mo. 492, 99 S.W.2d 17. (2) House Bill 677 is a general law and not a special or local law and does not come within the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of Article IV, Section 30 of Article II, and Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution of Missouri, nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because: (a) The classification made by the Legislature has been left open and permits of other political subdivisions coming within its terms. State ex rel. Zoological Board v. City, 318 Mo. 910, 1 S.W.2d 1021; State ex rel. Holloway v. Knight, 323 Mo. 1241, 21 S.W.2d 767; State ex rel. Dickason v. County Court, 128 Mo. 427, 31 S.W. 23; State ex rel. Crain v. Moore, 339 Mo. 492, 99 S.W.2d 17; State ex rel. Sewer District v. Smith, 337 Mo. 855, 87 S.W.2d 147; Vrooman v. St. Louis, 337 Mo. 933, 88 S.W.2d 189; Thomas v. Buchanan County, 330 Mo. 627, 51 S.W.2d 95; State v. McCann, 329 Mo. 748, 47 S.W.2d 95; State ex rel. Moseley v. Lee, 319 Mo. 976, 5 S.W.2d 83; Davis v. Jasper County, 318 Mo. 248, 300 S.W. 493; State ex rel. Waterworth v. Clark, 275 Mo. 95, 204 S.W. 1090; Construction Co. v. Realty Co., 270 Mo. 450, 193 S.W. 543; State ex inf. Barker v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275, 177 S.W. 640; State v. Keating, 202 Mo. 197, 100 S.W. 648; State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 79, 84 S.W. 10; State ex rel. Lionberger v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645. (b) The classification made by the Legislature in this instance is based upon inherent differences between the areas affected which form a reasonable basis for the classification. State ex inf. Barrett v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21, 241 S.W. 402; State ex rel. Daily Record v. Hartmann, 299 Mo. 410, 253 S.W. 991; State ex rel. Holloway v. Knight, 323 Mo. 1241, 21 S.W.2d 767; Thompson v. Frisco, 334 Mo. 958, 69 S.W.2d 936; Massey-Harris Co. v. Bank, 340 Mo. 1133, 104 S.W.2d 385; Springfield v. Smith, 322 Mo. 1129, 19 S.W.2d 1; State v. Ward, 328 Mo. 658, 40 S.W.2d 1047; Waterman v. Bridge & Iron Works, 328 Mo. 688, 41 S.W.2d 575; State ex rel. Evans v. Gordon, 245 Mo. 12, 149 S.W. 638; Davis v. Jasper County, 318 Mo. 248, 300 S.W. 493; State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 79, 84 S.W. 10; O'Connor v. Transit, 198 Mo. 622, 97 S.W. 150; Hines v. Hook, 338 Mo. 114, 89 S.W.2d 52. (c) House Bill 677 must be read and construed with House Bill 555 passed at the same session of the Legislature (Sixtieth General Assembly), said acts being in pari materia. State ex rel. Karbe v. Bader, 336 Mo. 259, 78 S.W.2d 835; State v. Harris, 337 Mo. 1052, 87 S.W.2d 1026; State ex rel. Wabash v. Shain, 106 S.W.2d 898; Drainage District v. Lassater, 325 Mo. 493, 29 S.W.2d 716; Barrett v. Dallmeyer, 295 Mo. 638, 245 S.W. 1066; 2 Sutherland on Statutory Construction, secs. 443, 448; Interurban Ry. Co. v. Light Co., 277 Mo. 579, 210 S.W. 361; State ex rel. Monett v. Barry, 302 Mo. 279, 258 S.W. 710; Gasconade County v. Gordon, 241 Mo. 569, 145 S.W. 1160.

OPINION

Tipton, J.

Appellant seeks to enjoin the respondent from proceeding by suit under the provisions of House Bill 677 of the Sixtieth General Assembly to collect delinquent tax bills charged against her property located in St. Louis, Missouri, for the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and for interest, costs and attorneys' fees thereon. After hearing the case upon its merits, the trial court entered its judgment dismissing appellant's petition and denying the injunction prayed. From that judgment, the appellant has duly appealed to this court.

Appellant contends that House Bill 677 is unconstitutional for the reason that the title to this bill violates Section 28, Article IV of our Constitution, which reads: "No bill . . . shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

House Bill 677 applies only to counties or cities not in a county which now have or may hereafter have in excess of 700,000 inhabitants, and to counties which now have or may hereafter have not less than 200,000 and not more than 400,000 inhabitants. Among other things, it provides that back taxes against real estate shall be enforced by suit brought in any court of competent jurisdiction, and it also provides for costs and attorneys' fees. This bill amends what is known as the Jones-Munger Law, Laws 1933, page 425.

Under the Jones-Munger Law, delinquent liens for taxes on real estate were not enforced by a suit brought in court, but, instead, the land was advertised and sold by the county collector who gave a certificate of purchase.

The title to House Bill 677 is as follows: "To amend an act of the Fifty-Seventh General Assembly appearing in Laws of Missouri, General Session, 1933, pages 425 to 449, inclusive entitled (here is copied the title to the Jones-Munger Law, relating to delinquent and back taxes) by enacting eighteen new sections to be known as Sections 9952 A-1, 9952 A-2, 9952 A-3, 9952 A-4, 9952 A-5, 9952 A-6, 9952 A-7, 9952 A-8, 9952 A-9, 9952 A-10, 9952 A-11, 9952 A-12, 9952 A-13, 9952 A-14, 9952 A-15, 9952 A-16, 9952 A-17, 9952 A-18, relating to the same subject matter and applying to counties and cities not within a county which may now have or may hereafter have a population in excess of 700,000 inhabitants and to counties which now have or may hereafter have not less than 200,000 and not more than 400,000 inhabitants, and repealing all conflicting acts and parts of acts with an emergency clause and declaring this to be a revision bill."

In the case of State ex inf. Crain v. Moore, 339 Mo. 492, l. c. 495, 99 S.W.2d 17, we said:

"The legislative title shows the act is one to repeal ten named sections of...