St. Joseph Lead Co., In re, 48688

• Decision Date: 11 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 48688,No. 2,48688,2
• Citation: 352 S.W.2d 656
• Parties: In the Matter of the Assessment of: ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY, a Corporation. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, Missouri, School District of Flat River, Missouri, School District of Doe Run, Missouri, School District of Elvins, Missouri, and School District of Esther, Missouri, Respondents, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, James M. Robertson, John O. Williams, J. Ralph Hutchinson, Commissioners of the Missouri State Tax Commission, and St. Joseph Lead Company, Respondents, St. Joseph Lead Company, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 656

352 S.W.2d 656

In the Matter of the Assessment of: ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY, a Corporation ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, Missouri, School District of Flat River, Missouri, School District of Doe Run Missouri, School District of Elvins Missouri, and School District of Esther, Missouri Respondents, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, James M. Robertson, John O. Williams, J. Ralph Hutchinson, Commissioners of the Missouri State Tax Commission, and St. Joseph Lead Company, Respondents, St. Joseph Lead Company, Appellant.

No. 48688.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Dec. 11, 1961.

Motions for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court en Banc or to

Modify Opinion Denied Jan. 8, 1962.

Opinion Modified on Court's Own Motion Jan. 8, 1962.

W. Oliver Rasch, Bonne Terre, John S. Marsalek, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel & Hamilton, St. Louis, for appellant, St. Joseph Lead Co.

Raymond R. Roberts, Pros. Atty., St. Francois County, Charles G. Hyler, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Francois County, Farmington, Rush H. Limbaugh, Cape Girardeau, for respondents.

BARRETT, Commissioner.

This appeal by St. Joseph Lead Company involves the valuation of its property in St. Francois County for the purposes of taxation. In general the property consists of approximately 45,000 acres of land, known as 'The Lead Belt,' in which the company has both mineral and surface rights. The appellant's principal business in St. Francois County is the mining, processing and milling of lead and its by-products. In the several areas devoted to mining and milling ore, some of them for almost 100 years, there are all the vast installations and complicated machinery necessarily incident to these operations. The 45,000 acre area is comprised of hundreds of tracts of land acquired over the years and that not devoted to mining consists of farmland, some timberland, and some of it has been developed into business and residential property, and a part of all these properties or interests has been sold or leased with mineral rights reserved.

As of January 1, 1959, the assessor and, after applications for review, other taxing authorities of St. Francois County valued and assessed the St. Joseph Lead Company's property at $12,205,100.00. The company appealed to the State Tax Commission and on December 21, 1959, the commission reduced the assessment to $6,657,720.00 and the company immediately paid its taxes for that year based upon that valuation. In January 1960, St. Francois County and four school districts, proceeding under the Administrative Procedure and Review Act, filed a petition for review in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County and that court found that the State Tax Commission had abused its discretion in refusing to grant the county and the school districts a continuance and that its decision was 'wholly unsupported by and (is) contrary to competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.' Whereupon the circuit court reversed the finding and order of the tax commission and fixed the assessed valuation of the lead company's property as it had been fixed by the St. Francois County Board of Equalization, at $12,205,100.00. The St. Joseph Lead Company has, of course, appealed to this court from that judgment.

At the outset it should be noted that the appellant has briefed thirty-one separate points and in reply the respondents have cited long lists of cases, fifty-one under one point and thirty-one under another and so on. The record is long and the case as a whole extremely complex but at this stage of the proceeding some of these numerous points have indeed become minor if not irrelevant and some of the analogies the parties would draw from the cases dealing with common-law pleading and practice are apparent but not particularly helpful or persuasive. At this juncture questions concerning the sufficiency of petitions to the board of equalization, to the tax commission, or to the circuit court on review, notice to school districts and similar matters (May Department Stores Co. v. State Tax Commission (Mo.) 308 S.W.2d 748) only tend to confuse essential and meritorious problems. The numerous points, the lists of cases, the analogies and the record have all been dutifully considered with such understanding of several very technical and complex subjects as limited capacity and obviously limited technical knowledge permit. In this opinion only those matters deemed necessary to a disposition of the appeal and the exhaustion of this court's function will be considered in detail.

The appellant's first point is that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondents's petition for review, therefore it is urged that the court erred in overruling its motions to dismiss the review petition. The principal reason asserted for this proposition is that since the State Tax Commission, on appeal from the county board of equalization, fixed the valuation and reduced the assessment the respondents, the county and school districts, are conclusively bound by the order and 'had no right to a review of the decision.' In part this argument appears to be particularly directed against the school districts who were permitted to intervene before the tax commission. But at this point in the proceeding this particular argument and the contention that the prosecuting attorney, 'when (so) called upon,' is charged with the duty 'to represent the commission in any litigation which it may wish to institute or in which it may become involved in the discharge of its duties' (V.A.M.S. Sec. 138.410(2)) are lacking in persuasive supporting force. It is not necessary to say whether the commission erred in permitting the intervention of the school districts or to consider whether they could employ expert witnesses to make appraisals. Before the tax commission, in the circuit court and here, the county represents whatever interest or rights the several school districts may have had and their status or rights are now immaterial and certainly unnecessary to a determination of the basic problems involved upon this appeal. And so it is with the prosecuting attorney, he may on occasion be charged with the duty of assisting or representing the tax commission but he is also charged with the duty of representing the political unit in which he was elected, the county. V.A.M.S. Sec. 56.070. And in this proceeding the tax commission, if it needed representation, and the public, other than the public interest represented by the county, were represented by an assistant attorney general (V.A.M.S. Sec. 138.410(2)) and there was no basic conflict of interest and all public parties and their separate public interests were represented. And of course the 'private rights' and interests of the appellant, who after all instituted the review proceedings before the board of equalization and the tax commission, were indeed adequately represented by respected counsel.

In its essence the appellant's contention that the county and school districts do not have the right, under the Administrative Procedure and Review Act (Ch. 536 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.), to a judicial review of a decision of the tax commission lowering valuations is that the constitution and statutes have provided a complete and comprehensive plan or scheme for the review and correction of tax assessments. It is urged, since the ultimate authority and responsibility for administering the plan have been vested in the State Tax Commission and since the respondents are subordinate agents or units of the state, that it is not within their province or power to challenge the commission's determination. In support of this basic contention it is said that counties and school districts have only such powers as have been granted by the legislature, that the right to judicial review is statutory and has not been specifically conferred on the respondents, that the decisions of administrative tribunals affecting 'private rights' only are subject to review and, finally, that the respondents are not 'person(s) aggrieved' within the meaning of the administrative review act,--'Any person * * * who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.' V.A.M.S. Sec. 536.100.

Some of these matters need not be considered in detail; admittedly, the legislature may grant the right of appeal or review of tax assessments to either the taxpayer or the state (or one of its political units), and it may also limit or deny the right to either the taxpayer or the state. L.R.A.1915B, pp. 875, 877; Birmingham Drainage Dist. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 274 Mo. 140, 202 S.W. 404. And, the legislature has not in specific terms granted the right of review to counties; on the other hand, it has not specifically denied the right. In some circumstances, as when there is not a contested case by parties to the proceeding, or there is an intercounty equalization, there are tax commission orders that even a taxpayer asserting private rights may not have reviewed. May Department Stores Co. v. State Tax Commission, supra; Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Commission, (Mo.) 319 S.W.2d 590. And, on occasion, some states have denied the right of review to political subdivisions or their taxing officials when the right had not been specifically granted for the asserted reason that they were not an 'aggrieved party' within the meaning of the tax statute (In re Proposed Assessment by Treasurer of Woodbury County v. Lytle Investment Co., 219 Iowa 1099, 260 N.W. 538), although the same court had previously held that the general civil code provision authorizing appeals by 'any person who may feel aggrieved' included the city and local board of equalization. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co. v. City of Newton, 97 Iowa 502, 66 N.W. 784, 785. Also, admittedly, our constitution and statutes contemplate a comprehensive plan for the valuation of property for tax...