Joplin Water Works Co. v. Jasper County

• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 30105.,30105.
• Citation: 38 S.W.2d 1068
• Parties: JOPLIN WATER WORKS COMPANY, Appellant, v. JASPER COUNTY, CITY OF JOPLIN and SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JOPLIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

38 S.W.2d 1068

JOPLIN WATER WORKS COMPANY, Appellant, v. JASPER COUNTY, CITY OF JOPLIN and SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JOPLIN.

No. 30105.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division One.

May 21, 1931.

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. R.H. Davis, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Geo. J. Grayston and Chas. M. Grayston for appellant; C.H. Dickey of counsel.

(1) The trial court erred in holding that the property of appellant actually located in Jasper County was not appurtenant to the supply station located in Newton County, and that the distribution system in Jasper County was assessable in this county separately from the supply station located in Newton County, because of the fact that it is in a separate political division or assessing district. (2) The trial court erred in holding that the assessing officers of one county could not assess physical property permanently located in another county regardless of physical and functional connections of the two properties. (3) The trial court erred in holding that even the portion of the supply pipes coming from the Newton County pumping station north of the county line and connected with and constituting a part of the Newton County plant in its service of supplying water to be purified and distributed by the Jasper County plant, was assessable in Jasper County. (4) The questions presented in this appeal are whether the pertinent portions of the opinion of this court in the Sedalia case shall stand as the law in this State and, if so, whether said opinion is so applicable to the facts of this case as to determine the result hereof. State ex rel. Sedalia Water Co. v. Harnsberger, 14 S.W. (2d) 554. (5) The contention of respondents that the property must be assessed with reference to lines of taxing districts and actual location is in conflict with the holdings of this court in the Sedalia case wherein it appears that lines of taxation districts were disregarded in the holding that the distributing system was appurtenant to the supply plant and real estate upon which such plant was located. Appeal of Des Moines Water Co., 48 Iowa, 324.

Russell Mallett, R.A. Pearson and Haywood Scott for respondents.

(1) Where a waterworks company, having an exclusive franchise to furnish pure water to the city of Joplin, in Jasper County, and to the inhabitants thereof, is the owner of a tract of land in that city upon which it has a plant for the purification and distribution of the water, the distribution of the purified water being had by means of a power plant with steam boilers, pumps and machinery, situated upon its said tract of land, such pumps and machinery being connected with appurtenant pipes and connections therewith through which the purified water is pumped throughout the city, such distribution system is appurtenant to the land upon which it is partly situated and with which it is connected and therefore it is taxable as a part of such real property; and the case is not altered by the fact that the waterworks company owns another tract of land on the banks of a stream in Newton County (a number of miles away from the City of Joplin), and maintains and operates a pumping station there by which it pumps raw water through pipes across the county line and discharges such water into a settling basin or reservoir situated upon the tract of land in Joplin where its purification and distribution plant is located, such pumping station in Newton County and the pipes leading therefrom to the place of discharge of the raw water at the basin or reservoir in Joplin performing no service other than to transport the raw water from the stream in Newton County and discharge the same into the basin or reservoir near the purification and distribution plant in Joplin and being in no way connected with either the purification or the distribution, the impulse of the pumps propelling the raw water ending with the discharge thereof at the terminus of the pipes at the basin or reservoir in Joplin. Sec. 12967, R.S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Harnsberger, 14 S.W. (2d) 557; Press Brick & Mach. Co. v. Brick & Quarry Co., 151 Mo. 512; Rutherford v. Railroad Co., 147 Mo. 451. (2) Where the source of the water supply is in another taxing district or in another State from that of the main plant, it is separable from the plant, for taxation purposes. Beaverton Township v. Lord (Mich.), 209 N.W. 122; Winnepiscogee Lake Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Gilford (N.H.), 10 Atl. 849. (3) Jasper County and Newton County are separate and distinct taxing districts and have separate taxing machinery. The county assessor and the equalization board of the county are limited to their respective jurisdictions. The Newton County Assessor and the Newton County Board of Equalization have no power to assess and equalize the valuation, respectively, of real estate or appurtenances situated within Jasper County. The county assessor and the county board of equalization have, respectively, only the power to assess and equalize the valuation and assessments of all real and personal property, within the county, which is made taxable by law. Secs. 12759, 12762, 12821, R.S. 1919.

Leo H. Johnson and James E. Sater, Amici Curiae.

STURGIS, C.

The opinion in this case written by Commissioner SEDDON meets with the approval of the other commissioners and the judges of Division One except as herein indicated. The opinion of Commissioner SEDDON, so far as approved, is as follows:

This controversy was submitted to the Circuit Court of Jasper County as an agreed case, setting forth the facts upon which the controversy depends, as is provided by Sections 1548 and 1549, Revised Statutes 1919. The facts upon which the controversy depends are agreed by the parties to be as follows:

"Come now Joplin Water Works Company, designated as plaintiff, and the County of Jasper, City of Joplin, and School District of Joplin, designated as defendants; and state that they are parties to a question in difference which might be the subject of a civil action, and hereby and herein agree upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy depends and present a submission of the same to the said Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri: the facts agreed upon are as follows:

"1. That the plaintiff and the defendants are and were organized as above stated at and during all the times stated herein, and that the city of Joplin is located in Jasper County, Missouri, in the southwest corner thereof and runs to the line between Jasper and Newton counties; and that the lines of the School District of Joplin are and were substantially the same as the lines of said city of Joplin, which city is and was at all times herein mentioned a city of the second class organized under the general laws of the State; and that Joplin Water Works Company is and was at all times herein mentioned organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, applicable to business and manufacturing corporations, and engaged in the business of treating, purifying and distributing water within and throughout the limits of the said city of Joplin, being authorized so to do by franchise ordinances enacted from time to time in the said city in the manner provided by law, and the said Joplin Water Works Company is, by its charter, located in the city of Joplin.

"2. It is further agreed that the said Joplin Water Works Company is and was at all the times herein mentioned the owner in fee of the land in the city of Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri, described and assessed for state, county, city and school taxing purposes as set out in the order of the County Court of Jasper County, Missouri, hereinafter copied; and that the personal property of the said Joplin Water Works Company as and for the date of June, 1928, was assessed upon a return made by the company at a total of $450,000.

"3. It is further agreed that none of said assessments were changed by the Board of Equalization or by the Board of Appeals of said county; but that under date of June 3, 1929, the county court of said county, upon due notice to the said Joplin Water Works Company and a hearing, made its order changing and correcting the said assessments, which said notice and order read as follows, to-wit: [Here follow a copy of the notice to the Joplin Water Works Company, and a written acceptance of service of said notice by the Joplin Water Works Company, both dated May 10, 1929.]

"In response to the foregoing notice, the Joplin Water Works Company appeared by its superintendent, J.N. Wells, and by its attorneys, Grayston & Grayston, and the parties announced ready for trial.

"After hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, the (county) court takes the matter under advisement and adjourns the further hearing of this matter until the 3rd of June, 1929.

"In the Matter of the Correction of Errors Appearing in Connection with the Description of the Property of the Joplin Water Works Company.

"Now on this 3rd day of June, 1929, at nine o'clock A.M. comes the County of Jasper, appearing by its prosecuting attorney, Russell Mallett, the city of Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri, appearing by its city attorney, R.A. Pearson, the School District of Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri, appearing by its attorney, Haywood Scott, and the Joplin Water Works Company, appearing by its superintendent, J.N. Wells, and its attorneys, Grayston & Grayston.

"The court finds that the real estate of the Joplin Water Works Company has been and is assessed as follows:

                                               Total Valuation
                                                 By Assessor
                Joplin Water Works Company
                  East Highland Addition to Joplin
                  Lot 119 ................................... $   400
                Joplin Water Works Company
                  Murphy's First Addition to Joplin
                  Lots 129 to 139 ...........................  32,500
                Joplin Water Works Company
                  Murphy's First Addition to Joplin,
                  Lots 150 to 160 ...........................   7,800
                Joplin Water Works Company;

...