Pearson Drainage Dist. v. Erhardt

• Decision Date: 14 October 1946
• Docket Number: No. 39711.,39711.
• Citation: 196 S.W.2d 855
• Parties: PEARSON DRAINAGE DIST. v. ERHARDT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

196 S.W.2d 855

PEARSON DRAINAGE DIST. v. ERHARDT.

No. 39711.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

October 14, 1946.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrian County; Frank Hollingsworth, Judge.

Action to recover drainage taxes by Pearson Drainage District, a corporation, against John Erhardt, revived in the name of Tom Devine. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Case transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, Clifford B. Kimberly, and Milligan, Kimberly & Deacy, all of Kansas City, for appellant.

Windsor & Wooldridge, of Boonville, and Clark, Boggs, Peterson & Becker, of Columbia, for respondent.

GANTT, Judge.

Action by an alleged drainage district to collect about two hundred dollars drainage taxes from the defendant owner of land in said district. The defendant contends that plaintiff is not a legally organized district under the statute. He also contends that it has been so ruled in two prior cases and for that reason the question is res judicata. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

It is stated in appellant's brief that this court has appellate jurisdiction for the reason the case requires a construction of the revenue laws of this state. We have ruled to the contrary in State ex rel. Broughton v. Oliver, 273 Mo. 537, 201 S.W. 868. In that case and at page 542 of 273 Mo., at page 870 of 201 S.W., we stated:

"When the Constitution speaks of the `revenue laws of this state,' as it does in section 12 of article 6, supra, it has reference to that body of laws by which funds for public governmental purposes are raised, and not to that law or body of laws by which are authorized the assessment of benefits to meet the expenses of given improvements. In other words, the two purposes make up separate schemes: (1) revenues for public governmental purposes, and the assessment, collection, and expenditure thereof; and (2) special assessments and their collection and expenditure. It is to the first class supra that the constitutional provision under review applies, and not to the latter." Chilton v. Drainage District No. 8 of Pemiscot County, 332 Mo. 1173, 61 S.W.2d 744.

Plaintiff also contends that the title to real estate is involved. We also have ruled this question to the contrary in Nettleton Bank v. McGaughey's Estate, 318 Mo. 948, 2 S.W.2d 771, 774. In that case we stated: "To involve title within the meaning of the Constitution a judgment must adjudicate a title controversy. The...