Spitcaufsky v. Hatten

• Decision Date: 31 July 1944
• Docket Number: No. 39105.,39105.
• Citation: 182 S.W.2d 86
• Parties: HYMAN SPITCAUFSKY, BERTHA SPITCAUFSKY; W.R. BUCHANAN; THE MUNICIPAL BOND CORPORATION; HEIM & OVERLY REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation for Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Who May Intervene Herein and Adopt the Allegations of this Petition, v. ALVIN D. HATTEN, County Collector of Jackson County, Missouri; JOHN F. THICE, Attorney for ALVIN D. HATTEN, County Collector; TRUSTON W. KIRBY, Treasurer of Jackson County, Missouri; BEN NORDBERG, County Clerk of Jackson County, Missouri; COUNTY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI; WILSON D. BELL, Treasurer of the State of Missouri; KANSAS CITY, a Municipal Corporation; L.P. COOKINGHAM, City Manager of Kansas City, HORACE R. McMORRIS, Director of Finance of Kansas City, Missouri; H.J. GORMAN, Treasurer of Kansas City; JOHN Z. STERRETT, Assessor of Kansas City, Missouri; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

182 S.W.2d 86

HYMAN SPITCAUFSKY, BERTHA SPITCAUFSKY; W.R. BUCHANAN; THE MUNICIPAL BOND CORPORATION; HEIM & OVERLY REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation for Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Who May Intervene Herein and Adopt the Allegations of this Petition, v. ALVIN D. HATTEN, County Collector of Jackson County, Missouri; JOHN F. THICE, Attorney for ALVIN D. HATTEN, County Collector; TRUSTON W. KIRBY, Treasurer of Jackson County, Missouri; BEN NORDBERG, County Clerk of Jackson County, Missouri; COUNTY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI; WILSON D. BELL, Treasurer of the State of Missouri; KANSAS CITY, a Municipal Corporation; L.P. COOKINGHAM, City Manager of Kansas City, HORACE R. McMORRIS, Director of Finance of Kansas City, Missouri; H.J. GORMAN, Treasurer of Kansas City; JOHN Z. STERRETT, Assessor of Kansas City, Missouri; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Appellants.

No. 39105.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, July 31, 1944.

Rehearing Denied, August 16, 1944.

Motion to Modify Opinion Sustained, September 5, 1944.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

George K. Brasher, County Counselor, J. Marcus Kirtley, Assistant County Counselor, John F. Thice, William E. Kemp, City Counselor, Benj. M. Powers, Assistant City Counselor, and Jerome M. Joffee, Special Assistant City Counselor, for appellants.

(1) The provisions of the act for a judicial proceeding in rem with notice by publication constitute due process of law on all parties having an interest in the land. Former enforcement proceeding. Laws 1872, p. 80; Raley v. Guinn, 76 Mo. 263; Pearce v. Tittsworth, 87 Mo. 635; Duff v. Neilson, 90 Mo. 937, 2 S.W. 222; Cruzen v. Stephens, 123 Mo. 357, 27 S.W. 557; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404, 95 S.W. 382; Wilcox v. Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S.W. 55; Taft v. Tallman, 277 Mo. 157, 209 S.W. 868; Charter Oak Land & Lbr. Co. v. Bippus, 200 Mo. 688, 98 S.W. 546; Sec. 11388, R.S. 1939. (2) Notice by general publication constitutes due process in tax cases in rem. Tax cases. State ex rel. Buder v. Hughes, 350 Mo. 547, 166 S.W. (2d) 516; Gitchell v. Kreider, 84 Mo. 472, 88 S.W. 6; State ex rel. McGhee v. Baumann, 349 Mo. 232, 160 S.W. (2d) 697; Kennen v. McFarling, 350 Mo. 180, 165 S.W. (2d) 681; Johnson v. McAboy, 350 Mo. 1086, 169 S.W. (2d) 932; Davis v. McCann, 143 Mo. 172, 44 S.W. 795; Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496, 141 S.W. 650; State ex rel. Karbe v. Bader, 336 Mo. 259; Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414; Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526; Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79; Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U.S. 152; Kentucky Union Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345; Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660; King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U.S. 92; Williams v. Pittcock, 77 Pac. 385; Outlook Irrigation Dist. v. Fels, 28 Pac. (2d) 996; Gathwright v. Baltimore, 30 Atl. (2d) 252; City of Coral Gables v. Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes Are Delinquent, 110 Fla. 189, 149 So. 36; Horne v. City of Ocala, 143 Fla. 108, 196 So. 441, 311 U.S. 608; Alexander v. United States, 128 Fed. (2d) 282; State ex rel. Yaegar v. Rose, 114 So. 373; City of Utica v. Proite, 36 N.Y.S. 79; Lynbrook Gardens v. Ullman, 53 N.E. (2d) 353; R.S. 1939, secs. 11001, 11002; Charter of Kansas City, Sec. 372; Revised Ordinances of Kansas City, Secs. 56-11 and 56-12. (3) The condemnation cases. Kansas City v. Duncan, 135 Mo. 571, 37 S.W. 513; Schwab v. St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116, 274 S.W. 1058; In re Condemnation of Property for Park in City of St. Joseph, 263 S.W. 97; Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172, 35 S.W. 600; Kansas City v. Mastin, 169 Mo. 80, 68 S.W. 1037; Petet v. McClanahan, 297 Mo. 677, 249 S.W. 917; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 320 Mo. 120, 6 S.W. (2d) 935. (4) Admiralty cases. The Rio Grande, 90 U.S. 458; U.S. Code Ann., Title 28, Sec. 723. (5) The power of the state to collect taxes is not limited to the means provided for private debts. Hammett v. Kansas City, 173 S.W. (2d) 70; People v. Skinner, 115 Pac. 488; Ploch v. St. Louis, 345 Mo. 1069, 138 S.W. (2d) 1020; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37. (6) The procedure under the act effectually confers jurisdiction in equity. Reuter v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125; Carrollton v. Tonnar, 28 S.W. (2d) 443; Schwab v. St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116, 274 S.W. 1058; Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 306 Mo. 312, 267 S.W. 641; Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526; Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414; Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140; Gathwright v. Baltimore, 30 Atl. 253. (7) The fact that the act provides no trial by jury is not an objection to its constitutionality. Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101; Natl. Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1; Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. J.M. Willis Barber & Beauty Shop, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E. (2d) 4; U.S. Code Ann., Title 26, Sec. 276 (c). (8) The failure to specify the person who shall make the affidavit of publication or to specify the time thereof or to whom it shall be sent does not render Section 19 invalid. Raley v. Guinn, 76 Mo. 263; Robins v. Boulware, 190 Mo. 33, 88 S.W. 674; McDaniel v. Sprick, 297 Mo. 424, 249 S.W. 611; Sec. 14969, R.S. 1939. (9) The failure of Section 17 to require affidavit of nonresidence of interested parties does not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction nor is Section 38, Article VI, of the Constitution violated. Creason v. Yardley, 272 Mo. 279, 198 S.W. 830. (10) The provisions of the act and particularly Sections 22 and 27 thereof, for acquiring jurisdiction over infants, incompetent persons and convicts in confinement and for divesting their rights constitute due process of law and are not in violation of Section 30, Article II, of the Constitution of Missouri or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or of Section 15, Article II, of the Constitution of Missouri as impairing the obligations of contract or of Subsection 21, Section 53, Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri, as a local or special law affecting the estates of minors and incompetents, or on the ground that Section 22 differs from the general law of the state as to infants. Sec. 867, R.S. 1939; Charley v. Kelley, 120 Mo. 134, 25 S.W. 571; Utica v. Proite, 36 N.Y.S. 79; Reineman v. Larkin, 222 Mo. 156, 121 S.W. 307; Little v. Browning, 287 Mo. 278, 230 S.W. 92; Payne v. Masek, 114 Mo. 631, 21 S.W. 751. (11) The provisions of Section 8 providing that all taxing authorities within such county shall file a list of delinquent real estate taxes with the county collector is not an unlawful encroachment by the legislature upon the rights, powers and duties of the officials of Kansas City under its charter, and the act is not invalid as not requiring the collector to give bond. Charter of Kansas City, Secs. 373 and 383. (12) The provisions of the act for consolidation of all tax bill suits with the collector's proceeding is not in conflict with Section 15 or Section 30 of Article II of the Constitution of Missouri or with Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States. R.S. Mo. 1939, sec. 3570; Manchester Iron Works v. Wagner Constr. Co., 341 Mo. 389, 107 S.W. (2d) 89. (13) Neither the act nor Sections 23, 24 and 25 thereof violate Section 15, Article II, of the Constitution of Missouri, nor Section 10, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States by taking vested rights. State ex rel. Associated Holding Co. v. Shain, 335 Mo. 474, 73 S.W. (2d) 391; Burridge v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 211 Mo. 158, 19 S.W. 560; McManus v. Park, 287 Mo. 109, 229 S.W. 211; State ex rel. McAllister v. Dunn, 277 Mo. 38, 209 S.W. 110; State ex rel. Columbia Tel. Co. v. Atkinson, 271 Mo. 28, 195 S.W. 741; Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343; State ex rel. Applegate v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 464, 123 S.W. 892; Abbott v. Marion Mining Co., 255 Mo. 378, 164 S.W. 563; Aetna Insurance Co. v. O'Malley, 342 Mo. 812, 118 S.W. (2d) 3; In the Matter of Life Ins. Assn. of America, 91 Mo. 177, 3 S.W. 833; Clark v. K.C., St. L. & Chgo. R. Co., 219 Mo. 524, 118 S.W. 40; Securities Savs. Trust Co. v. Donnell, 81 Mo. App. 147. (14) Neither the act nor Section 4 thereof constitutes the taking of vested rights of the owners of tax deeds in violation of the Constitution. State ex rel. Billings v. Osten, 5 Pac. (2d) 564; People of Puerto Rico v. Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, 108 F. (2d) 275; Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles County, 97 Pac. (2d) 963; Baird v. Chamberland, 292 N.W. 219; Ledegar v. Bockoven, 185 Pac. 1097. (15) Neither Section 6 of the act nor any other provision thereof constitutes a taking of plaintiffs' vested rights in tax certificates by giving priority to the taxes of the last year. State ex rel. McGhee v. Baumann, 349 Mo. 232, 160 S.W. (2d) 697; Jaicks v. Oppenheimer, 264 Mo. 693, 175 S.W. 972. (16) Section 8 requiring a filing fee of 65 cents is not invalid as arbitrary. (17) Section 50 making it a condition of filing a tax claim with the collector that the owner indemnify the collector by reason of error of the collector is not invalid as making it prohibitive to file such claim. (18) The provisions of Section 45 granting certain tax exemptions is not invalid as contrary to Sections 3, 6, 7 or 21, Article X, or of Subsection 23, Section 53, of Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri, or of Section 6, Article X, of the Constitution of Missouri, or of Section 37 of the Charter of Kansas City. (19) The provisions of Section 8 requiring the taxing authorities of cities to turn over to the county collector their delinquent taxes for collection by the collector is not invalid as imposing an expense upon the county for performing a duty of the city authorities. State ex rel. Steed v. Nolte, 345 Mo. 1103, 138 S.W. (2d) 1016; Aurora v. Lindsay, 146 Mo. 509, 48 S.W. 642; R.S. 1939, sec. 11202; R.S. 1929, sec. 9970. (20) The...