Lee v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 31 October 1871
• Citation: 49 Mo. 112
• Parties: WILLIAM H. LEE, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN C. B. THOMAS, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 Mo. 112

WILLIAM H. LEE, Plaintiff in Error,

v.JOHN C. B. THOMAS, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1871.

Error to Marion Circuit Court.

H. S. Lipscomb, with Dryden & Dryden, for plaintiff in error, cited State v. Shacklett, 37 Mo. 283; Elliott v. Swartout, 10 Pet. 137; Hearsey v. Pryn, 7 Johns. 179; Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. 201; Fry v. Lockwood, 4 Cow. 454.

H. M. Boulware, for defendant in error.

The tax list showing jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and being entirely regular, the defendant is protected. (St. Louis Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 462; St. Louis Building and Savings Ass'n v. Lightner, id. 393; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 479; State, etc., v. Shacklett, 37 Mo. 280; State, etc., v. St. Louis County Court, 47 Mo. 594; Turner v. Franklin, 29 Mo. 285; Milburn v. Gilman, 11 Mo. 64.)

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant was tax collector of the town of Palmyra, and seized personal property of plaintiff to make the amount of a town tax assessed upon his real estate. He paid the tax upon compulsion and under protest, and brings this suit. Several technical questions are raised upon the record, but I will consider only the one pertaining to the liability of defendant.

It is not disputed that a formal assessment was made upon plaintiff's property, and that the tax list in the collector's hands contained such assessment, but the plaintiff claims that the land was not subject to taxation, and hence that the assessor had no jurisdiction over it. He claims an exemption under act of December 11, 1855, supplementary to the act of incorporation, which provides as follows:

“Section 1. All lands contiguous to the town of Palmyra and recently brought into the limits of the city of Palmyra by the act to which this is supplementary, which are valuable only to be used for agricultural purposes, are hereby exempt from taxation for city purposes.

Sec. 2. This exemption shall only apply to such lands as have not been laid out in lots or blocks by the owners and proprietors thereof; and the true intent and meaning of this act is to exempt land from taxation which is used and held in good faith for agricultural purposes, and which has not been laid out in blocks and lots by the owners and proprietors thereof as aforesaid.”

Plaintiff's land consisted of three acres, and upon the trial he offered to prove that it was valuable only to be used for agricultural purposes and was so held by him in good faith, and had not been laid out in lots and blocks. This he was not permitted to do, whereupon he suffered nonsuit and appealed.

It was competent for the Legislature to exempt this class of property from town taxes, but the question first arises whether the plaintiff has taken the proper steps to avail himself of this exemption, if in fact he came within it. The ordinance pertaining to revenue provides that the assessor shall assess all lands and property subject to taxation, and the mayor and council shall “sit as a court of appeals, to hear and determine all appeals from the assessment of the assessor, and to correct all errors that may be found in his lists.” The law and ordinance thus have provided tribunals for determining what...