Kansas City Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 19 May 1903
• Parties: KANSAS CITY EXPOSITION DRIVING PARK v. KANSAS CITY, Appellant; IBID v. IBID
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 S.W. 979

174 Mo. 425

KANSAS CITY EXPOSITION DRIVING PARK v. KANSAS CITY, Appellant;

IBID v. IBID

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 19, 1903

Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

R. J Ingraham and L. A. Laughlin for appellants.

The record shows that in the two cases at bar respondent obtained an injunction enjoining the city from the collection of park and park maintenance taxes as well as city taxes levied during the years 1896 and 1897. So much of the judgment of the court below as enjoins the collection of the park and park maintenance tax is clearly void, because those taxes are taxes for local improvements and do not come within the exemption from general taxation given by the Constitution. Thus, in Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo 156, defendant claimed to be exempt from a special assessment against it for the improvement of a street on its front under the statute which provided its property "should be exempt from taxation of every kind." Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Clinton ex rel. v. Henry Co., 115 Mo. 557; State ex rel. v. City of Kansas, 89 Mo. 34. It has been expressly held by this court in Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 301, that the park taxes levied under the Kansas City charter are local assessments, and that school and church property, though exempt from general taxation, are subject to such taxes.

Gage, Ladd & Small for respondents.

(1) All these questions are res adjudicata, and settled by the judgments in prior cases. Railroad v. Steele, 63 F. 867; Grunert v. Spalding, 104 Wis. 193, 78 N.W. 606. (2) The judgment cancelling the taxes for the years 1894 and 1895 is res adjudicata as to the taxes in controversy for the years 1896 and 1897, because the issues adjudicated in the prior case are identically the same as those presented in the cases now before the court. This proposition is conclusively settled by the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U.S. 371.

OPINION

GANTT, P. J.

For the purposes of this appeal these two causes will be considered together. They are suits to enjoin the collection of certain taxes alleged to have been illegally levied on certain city property and have been transferred to this court because they involve a construction of the revenue laws of the State.

We think they were properly certified, as the exemption claimed applies as to all State and county taxes as well as to the municipal tax.

One suit is to enjoin the taxes for 1896, and the other the taxes for 1897. A perpetual injunction was decreed, from which the city and the city treasurer appeal. The petition in substance alleges that the Kansas City Exposition Driving Park, the plaintiff, is a corporation organized under the laws of this State in pursuance of article 8 of chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, in force at the time of its organization; that the purposes of said association were and at all times have been to encourage and promote agriculture and improvement of stock, and for these purposes to establish fair grounds, and that plaintiff is an agricultural society; that on and before July, 1890, it leased for a period of ten years for use as a fair ground the following land, situate in Kansas City, to-wit, all the land lying between Kansas and Prospect avenues and Twelfth and Fifteenth streets, except a portion of said land used and occupied as a baseball park. The petition then describes both the baseball park and the fair grounds by metes and bounds and city lots.

Plaintiff states that at great expense by various improvements it established its fair grounds upon said leased property and has ever since 1890 held the sole and exclusive possession of said premises for the purpose of holding its fairs thereon and for itself as an agricultural society. That by its lease it is bound to save the several owners harmless against all taxes and assessments thereon, and to pay the owners large rentals. Plaintiff further states that Kansas City, defendant, is a municipal corporation and a city of said State of Missouri, and as such has power and authority to levy and collect taxes upon all property, real and personal, not by law exempt from taxation, and that defendant Green is treasurer of said city.

Plaintiff also states that by reason of the matters and things herein stated, said property herein above described (the property leased by said plaintiff) is by law exempt from taxation by defendant Kansas City, but that said city has, nevertheless, levied upon all said property divers large sums as city and park and boulevard maintenance taxes, and has charged the same against the several lots, tracts and parcels thereof on its tax books for the fiscal year of 1897, and has delivered said tax books to defendant Green, as its treasurer for collection, and that said Green is now demanding payment of said taxes, and is now threatening and about to proceed to sell said property for said taxes, and unless enjoined and prevented by an order of this court, will sell the same and make certificates of such sales to the purchasers and issue tax deeds thereof, and that plaintiff's estate and title in said premises will be thereby clouded and plaintiff greatly and irremediably damaged and injured. Plaintiff further states that all the questions herein involved, including the right to exemption herein claimed, have been conclusively adjudged in favor of the plaintiff, in suits pending and heretofore determined between the parties in this court.

Wherefore plaintiff prays that said levies be declared and adjudged null and void, and that the same be decreed to be cancelled on said tax books, and that defendants be enjoined and restrained from further proceeding to sell said property, or any part thereof or in any manner to collect said city and park and boulevard maintenance taxes, and that a preliminary restraining order to the same effect and a temporary injunction pending this litigation be issued, and for such other and further relief as plaintiff in equity may be entitled to.

The answer, omitting caption, is as follows:

"Come now the defendants in the above-entitled cause and for their joint answer to plaintiff's petition therein filed admit that defendant Kansas City is a municipal corporation and a city of the State of Missouri, and as such has power and authority to levy and collect taxes upon all property, real and personal, not by law exempt from taxation, and that defendant Green is the city treasurer of said Kansas City, and the city has levied upon all of said property divers sums of money as city and park and boulevard maintenance taxes and charged the same against the several lots, tracts and parcels of land on its tax books for the fiscal year 1897, and has delivered said tax books to defendant Green, as its treasurer, for collection, and that said Green is now demanding payment of said taxes, and is now threatening and is about to proceed to sell said property for said taxes and that he is about to sell the same and make a certificate of such sale to the purchaser and in due time issue tax deeds thereon. Defendants admit that all of the real estate described in plaintiff's petition is situate in Kansas City, Jackson county, State of Missouri. Defendants admit (1) that plaintiff has bound itself to save the several owners of the real estate described in the petition, and each of them, harmless against all taxes and assessments thereon; (2) defendants say that plaintiff has bound itself by the terms of its lease with the owners of said real estate to pay all of the taxes, the collection of which the plaintiff seeks to enjoin by this proceeding.

"Further answering the defendants deny all allegations of the petition, except those hereinbefore specifically admitted.

"Defendants for further answer say that the real estate described in the petition, has not been, for at least three years last past, used by the plaintiff for agricultural or horticultural purposes.

"Wherefore defendants ask judgment and that they be sent hence without day and for costs."

The petition was by leave of the court amended by interlining the words, "Plaintiff further states that all of the questions herein involved including the right to the exemptions herein claimed have been conclusively adjudged in favor of plaintiff in suits pending and heretofore determined between the parties in this court."

And thereupon defendant filed its answer to the amended petition as follows:

"Defendants for their joint answer to plaintiff's amended petition, deny each and every allegation therein contained, except that Kansas City is incorporated as a city, as set forth in the petition.

"Defendants further answering say that the taxes were levied and assessed against the property described in the petition by Kansas City, amounting to the sum of $ 970.07 for the year 1896, and $ 645.27 for the year 1897."

The decree of the court perpetually enjoined all levies of taxes made by the defendant city and all "city, park and boulevard maintenance taxes for the year 1897 against the property described." In the other suit the taxes and assessments for 1896 were enjoined.

Motions for new trials were duly made and overruled, and exceptions saved. The plaintiff offered and read, over the objections and exceptions of defendant, the articles of association of Kansas City Exposition Driving Park, the purposes of which are declared therein to be "to establish and maintain a race course and driving park; to advance the mechanical industrial and fine arts; to promote athletic and all other lawful sports and amusements, and erect and maintain the necessary buildings and appurtenances," organized in May, 1889. For the...