Manufacturer's Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kansas City

Decision Date07 December 1959
Docket NumberNo. 23010,23010
Citation330 S.W.2d 263,80 A.L.R.2d 1035
PartiesMANUFACTURER'S CASUALTY INS. CO., a Corporation, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Richard H. Koenigsdorf, Maurice E. Benson, L. B. Saunders, Kansas City, for appellant.

Donald G. Stubbs, McKenize, Williams, Merrick, Beamer & Stubbs, Kansas City, for respondent.

HUNTER, Judge.

This is an appeal by the City of Kansas City from a judgment for $1,748.00 1 in favor of Manufacturer's Casualty Insurance Company, respondent, on its claim for refund of taxes paid under an admittedly invalid ordinance. 2 The judgment was obtained as a result of a suit filed May 31, 1955.

The sole question presented is whether respondent's payments of the taxes were voluntarily or involuntarily made.

The parties tried the case to the court upon their written stipulation of facts in which they agreed that:

(1) During the years 1950 through 1955 the city assessed against respondent and respondent paid a total of $1,748 occupational taxes for certain independent insurance agencies which sold respondent's policies of insurance. In addition respondent paid an annual occupational tax assessment of $100 for itself.

(2) These mentioned assessments of $1,748 were invalid as they were based on an invalid ordinance.

(3) By appellant city's ordinance a separate license was required for each place of business. Certain other ordinances of appellant in full force and effect at all times in question, made it a misdemeanor to do business without a license and provided punishment for a violation by a fine up to $500, imprisonment up to 12 months, or both. Each day's violation constituted a separate offense.

(4) Respondent has demanded refund of the $1,748 taxes and the city refuses to refund.

Concerning the subject of voluntariness, respondent alleged in its petition that it paid the $1,748 tax 'involuntarily and under protest.' Appellant specifically denied this in its answer. In their stipulation of facts the only mention of this subject by the parties is as follows: 'During the years 1950 through 1955 plaintiff (respondent) made additional payments as demanded by defendant (appellant) for license taxes in behalf of independent agencies who were authorized to write insurance with plaintiff. These payments were made as assessed by the defendant and no formal protest of payment was ever entered. The payments so made on behalf of independent agencies are as follows:

                                    Agent for which
                 "Date              Assessment was made         Amount
                 ------             -------------------         ------
                1950-51      Housh Insurance Agency             $200.00
                1950-51      H. L. Sachs Insurance Agency        200.00
                1950-51      Lovelace-Simmons Insurance Agency   200.00
                1950-55      Altman-Singleton Insurance Agency   612.00
                1950, 51,55  Bennett Shute Insurance Agency      312.00
                1955         Roy E. Daly                         112.00
                1955         Planco Agency                       112.00"

The general rule is that a person who has paid a license fee or tax based on an invalid statute or ordinance cannot recover the amount paid if the payment was made voluntarily with full knowledge of the facts. State ex rel. S. S. Kresge Co. v. Howard, 357 Mo. 302, 208 S.W.2d 247-250; 53 C.J.S. Licenses Sec. 57, p. 701; 33 Am.Jur., Licenses, Section 88, page 396; Annotations, 84 A.L.R. 294; 64 A.L.R. 9; 48 A.L.R. 1381.

However, if the payment of the tax to the municipality is deemed involuntary, the amount of the tax may be recovered in an appropriate action. 3 State ex rel. S. S. Kresge Co. v. Howard, supra; St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. City of St. Louis, 140 Mo. 419, 37 S.W. 525; State ex rel. American Manufacturing Co. v. Reynolds, 270 Mo. 589, 194 S.W. 878; 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, section 1167; 53 C.J.S. Licenses Sec. 57(1).

The difficulty ordinarily arises in determining whether the payment was voluntary or involuntary. The more recent cases on the subject are increasingly liberal in determining what is duress or compulsion so as to allow the tax to be recovered as involuntarily paid. See Brink v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 860, 198 S.W.2d 710; Standard Oil Co. v. City of Moberly, Mo.Sup., 33 S.W.2d 157; Simmons Hardware Co. v. City of St. Louis, Mo.Sup., 192 S.W. 394; State ex rel. American Manufacturing Co. v. Reynolds, supra; Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 298 Mo. 684, 252 S.W. 76; 45 Harv.L.Rev. 501, 512 ff.

Regardless of the liberalizing of the concept of what constitutes duress, according to the cases in this state it is still necessary that the taxpayer, upon whom the burden of proof rests, show that the payment was made involuntarily. See State ex rel. S. S. Kresge Co. v. Howard, supra, and other Missouri cases cited herein.

The weight of authority is to the general effect that a payment of taxes, with knowledge of all the facts, is not rendered involuntary by the fact that it was paid in the mistaken belief that the statute or ordinance under which it was levied was valid. The general rule, as sometimes stated, is that in the absence of a statute to the contrary, a person who has paid a license fee or tax which is illegal or in excess of the sum which might lawfully be exacted cannot recover back the amount paid or the illegal excess, if the payment was made voluntarily with full knowledge of the facts, although it was made in good faith, through a mistake or in ignorance of the law, unless the recovery is permitted by an agreement entered into at the time the payment was made. See Annotations, 48 A.L.R. 1382; 64 A.L.R. 9, 33; 84 A.L.R. 294; 53 C.J.S. Licenses Sec. 57b(1), p. 701; Mercury Machine Importing Corp. v. City of New York, 3 N.Y.2d 418, 165 N.Y.S.2d 517, 144 N.E.2d 400; Davis v. City & County of Denver, 120 Colo. 186, 207 P.2d 1185; Security National Bank of Watertown, S. D. v. Young, 8 Cir., 55 F.2d 616, 84 A.L.R. 100.

The most recent case in this state on this subject is the Kresge case, supra. The facts in that case were that the taxpayer was incorporated in Michigan for a duration of 30 years and was licensed to do business in Missouri where it operated a number of retail stores. Before its charter expired it amended its articles of incorporation to extend its corporate duration for an additional 30 years, and presented a copy of the amendment to the Secretary of State of Missouri for filing in order to obtain a renewal of its certificate of authority to do business in Missouri. The Secretary of State refused to issue such a certificate until the taxpayer paid the domestication tax in the same amount required if it were seeking an original qualification to do business in Missouri. Taxpayer then paid this tax. A few months later our Supreme Court handed down a decision, State ex rel. H. D. Lee Co., Inc. v. Bell, 355 Mo. 94, 195 S.W.2d 492, holding a foreign corporation was entitled to such a certificate without being required to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern Mariana Islands
    • 4 Noviembre 1981
    ...earlier decisions.22 Kresge Co. v. Howard, 357 Mo. 302, 208 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Mo.1947), cited in Manufacturers' Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kansas City, 330 S.W.2d 263, 80 A.L.R.2d 1035, 1039 (Mo.App.1959). Accord, State v. Wakefield, 495 P.2d at 172; see Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 284......
  • Regency Park v. City of Topeka, Ks
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 4 Junio 1999
    ...Detroit, 272 Mich. 610, 262 N.W. 422 (1935); Brink v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 860, 198 S.W. 2d 710 (1947); Manufacturer's Casualty Ins. Co. v. Kansas City, 330 S.W. 2d 263 (Mo. App. 1959); Salvaggio v. Houston Independent Sch. Dist., 709 S.W. 2d 306 (Tex. Civ. App. The trial court dismissed as......
  • Rapley v. Montgomery County
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 2 Marzo 1971
    ... ... Compare Lester v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 29 Md. 415 (1868) (unsuccessful ... ...
  • New Jersey State Bd. of Dentistry, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1980
    ...New York, 12 N.Y.2d 146, 149-150, 187 N.E.2d 774, 775, 237 N.Y.S.2d 315, 317 (1962); Manufacturer's Casualty Ins. Co. v. Kansas City, 330 S.W.2d 263, 267, 80 A.L.R.2d 1035, 1039-1040 (Mo.Ct.App. 1959); Restatement of Restitution § 75, Comment f at 323 (1937). The dentists here had no choice......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT