Reynolds v. Norman
| Decision Date | 13 March 1893 |
| Citation | 21 S.W. 845,114 Mo. 509 |
| Parties | Reynolds, Appellant v. Norman |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court. -- Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Olden & Orr for appellant.
It was said in Logan v. Barton Co. Court, 63 Mo. 340, that the collector was "not only authorized but required to receive county warrants in payment of county taxes," notwithstanding the warrant in that case was more than ten years old. United States v. Macon Co., 45 F. 400; Revised Statutes, 1889, secs. 3205, 7604. It is agreed that the warrant in question was legal, and in due form of law and that the plaintiff was the legal holder thereof, that is it was not a warrant issued in excess of the revenue provided for the year 1889, hence in law and in fact the warrant was equal to cash, since when it was paid into the county treasury by the collector an amount equal to said warrant could be transferred from the revenue fund of 1889 to the revenue fund of 1891.
This case was submitted to the circuit court under section 2233 Revised Statutes, 1889, upon the following agreed statement:
First. That the defendant was, on the tenth of February, 1892, and still is the legally elected, qualified and acting collector of the state and county revenue for Douglas county, Missouri.
Second. That plaintiff is the surviving partner of the firm of J. A. G. Reynolds & Sons.
Third. That on the said tenth day of February, 1892, the defendant had in his hands the tax books for Douglas county, whereon appeared the state, county and school taxes for the year 1891; and whereon appeared certain state, county and school taxes against plaintiff's firm amounting in the aggregate to $ 298.22.
Fourth. That on said tenth day of February, 1892, plaintiff paid to defendant the whole of said taxes, except the sum of $ 103.82, which last named sum was the total amount of county revenue tax for the year 1891 assessed against the real and personal property of plaintiff and plaintiff's firm.
Fifth. Plaintiff on said tenth day of February, 1892, presented and tendered to the defendant in payment of said county revenue tax a county warrant on the treasurer of Douglas county, Missouri, dated the fourth day of February, 1889, for the sum of $ 89.22, and which said warrant was in due form of law, and plaintiff was, at the time of the presentment thereof, the legal owner and holder thereof; that the amount of said warrant, principal and interest, when presented was $ 104.67, and the whole thereof was tendered in payment of the tax of $ 103.82. The defendant refused to accept said warrant in payment of said tax for the reason that it was drawn in the year 1889, and the taxes, in payment of which it was tendered, were due for 1891.
Plaintiff contends that it was a legal tender under sections 3205 and 7604, Revised Statutes, 1889, and now brings the said warrant into court and still tenders the same in payment of said tax.
Defendant still refuses to accept the same for the reason that said warrant is not issued for the same year for which the taxes are due, and unless restrained will proceed to levy upon the property of plaintiff for said tax.
To the end, therefore, that the matter in difference between the plaintiff and defendant may be settled as provided in section 2233, Revised Statutes, 1889, the same is hereby mutually submitted to the circuit court of Douglas county for decision.
Should the court find that said tender was a legal tender then plaintiff is to turn over to defendant said warrant in full payment of said tax and the costs of this submission to be taxed against defendant.
Should the court find said tender not to have been a legal tender then judgment is to be rendered against plaintiff for said tax, interest and costs, reserving the right to appeal to each party.
The sections under which plaintiff claims the right to use the warrant in payment of his county taxes provide as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial