Hurtgen v. Gasche
| Decision Date | 10 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | 41268 |
| Citation | 223 S.W.2d 493 |
| Parties | Joseph G. Hurtgen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Raymond F. Gasche, et al., Defendants-Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Civil Appeal, Judge Edward T. Eversole
Appeal Transferred
Appellants filed a petition in the circuit court of Jefferson County, Missouri, seeking to enjoin the respondents from levying a tax which had been authorized by the voters of Consolidated School District No. 3 of Jefferson County at a special election held in that district on April 29, 1948 whereby the tax rate was increased fifty cents in excess of one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation; and seeking further to restrain respondents from assessing and collecting taxes based upon that rate.
The petition alleged that the special election was null and void for the reason that the notice of election did not comply with the statutes, namely, Sections 10347, 10358 and 10395 of the Laws of 1945, pages 1630-1631, and Section 10418, R.S Mo., 1939. The petition also alleged that the election was "null and void for the further reason that said 50 cent increase on the $100.00 valuation would exceed the amount allowed by the Constitution of Missouri, to-wit, 'five per centum of the value of taxable tangible property,' as provided in Article VI, Section 26 (b), Constitution of Missouri, 1945."
Respondents Raymond F. Gasche, William G. Reinemer, Fred Whitehead, Frank Danneman, Jr., George Huskey and Leon Hall, as directors of Consolidated School District No. 3, filed their separate motion to dismiss appellants' petition for the reason that the petition showed upon its face that it did not state facts entitling appellants to injunctive relief or to any relief against these respondents. Respondents C. Glenn Murray, County Clerk, W. Dwight Schubel, Collector of Revenue and Clyde Hamrick, Superintendent of Schools, filed their separate motion to dismiss appellants' petition for the same reasons.
The trial court sustained the motions to dismiss and the appellants have duly appealed to this court.
Appellants state that we have jurisdiction of this appeal because the construction of revenue laws of this state is involved and because a constitutional question is involved.
The construction of revenue laws is not before this court. The question raised by the appellants in their petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial