State ex rel. Cairo Bridge Comm. v. Mitchell, 38892.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1944
• Docket Number: No. 38892.,38892.
• Citation: 181 S.W.2d 496
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of the CAIRO BRIDGE COMMISSION, a Body Corporate and Politic, Relator, v. JESSE MITCHELL, CLARENCE EVANS and JOHN T. WADDILL, as Members of the State Tax Commission of Missouri; FORREST C. DONNELL, DWIGHT H. BROWN, ROY McKITTRICK, FORREST SMITH and WILSON BELL, as Members of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Missouri.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

181 S.W.2d 496 STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of the CAIRO BRIDGE COMMISSION, a Body Corporate and Politic, Relator,
v.
JESSE MITCHELL, CLARENCE EVANS and JOHN T. WADDILL, as Members of the State Tax Commission of Missouri; FORREST C. DONNELL, DWIGHT H. BROWN, ROY McKITTRICK, FORREST SMITH and WILSON BELL, as Members of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Missouri. No. 38892. Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc, June 5, 1944. Rehearing Denied, July 3, 1944.

Certiorari.

RECORDS OF STATE TAX COMMISSION AND STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION QUASHED.

Carter, Bull & Garstang and Dewey & Cummins for relator; Emmet T. Carter, W.E. Cummins and David A. McMullan of counsel.

(1) This court has jurisdiction. Secs. 11027 (6), 11027, 11028, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Caulfield, 62 S.W. (2d) 818, 333 Mo. 270; State ex rel. v. Neaf, 346 Mo. 86, 139 S.W. (2d) 958; State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Evans, 346 Mo. 209, 139 S.W. (2d) 967; State ex rel. v. Corneli, 347 Mo. 932, 149 S.W. (2d) 815; State ex rel. Ferguson v. Donnell, 349 Mo. 975, 163 S.W. (2d) 940. (2) The Congress of the United States has power to establish this bridge as a proper function of the federal government under the Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8; California v. Cent. Pac. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 32 L. Ed. 150; Covington Bridge Co. v. Ky., 154 U.S. 204, 38 L. Ed. 962; Hauessler v. City, 205 Mo. 656, 103 S.W. 1034; Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Ala. State Bridge Corp., 59 Fed. (2d) 48, rehearing denied 287 U.S. 644, 77 L. Ed. 557; Howell v. Port of New York Authority, 34 Fed. Supp. 797. (3) The Congress of the United States may create an agency to carry out its activities. Pittman v. H.O.L.C., 308 U.S. 21, 84 L. Ed. 11; Haeussler v. City, 205 Mo. 656, 103 S.W. 1034; Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Ala. State Bridge Corp., 59 Fed. (2d) 48, rehearing denied 287 U.S. 644, 77 L. Ed. 557. (4) The Cairo Bridge Commission is such an agency and is an instrumentality of the United States Government. Act of Congress approved April 13, 1934, 48 Stat. 577; Act of Congress approved June 14, 1938, 52 Stat. 679; Laret Inv. Co. v. Dickmann, 345 Mo. 449, 134 S.W. (2d) 65. (5) Congress has the right to protect its agencies from the burden of local taxation. Pittman v. H.O.L.C., 308 U.S. 21, 84 L. Ed. 11; Federal Land Bank v. Bismark, 314 U.S. 95, 86 L. Ed. 65; Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 87 L. Ed. 1504; 61 C.J. 385. (6) In dealing with a government instrumentality the rule of constructon is in favor of exemption. Austin v. Alderman, 7 Wall. 694, 19 L. Ed. 224; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U.S. 195, 58 L. Ed. 912; Graves v. State of New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 83 L. Ed. 927, 306 U.S. 466; State v. Johnston, 214 Mo. 636, 113 S.W. 1083; Mullins v. Mt. St. Mary's Cemetery Assn., 239 Mo. 681, 144 S.W. 109; Northwestern University v. Hamburg, 86 N.E. 734, 237 Ill. 185. (7) The Act of Congress approved June 14, 1938, incorporates by reference the tax-exempt feature of the Act of Congress approved April 13, 1934. Act of Congress approved April 13, 1934, 48 Stat. 577; Act of Congress approved June 14, 1938, 52 Stat. 679; Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 18 L. Ed. 137; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 70 L. Ed. 813; State v. Peyton, 234 Mo. 517, 137 S.W. 979; State v. Lloyd, 320 Mo. 236, 7 S.W. (2d) 344; Brown v. State, 323 Mo. 138, 19 S.W. (2d) 12; State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 334 Mo. 513, 66 S.W. (2d) 521; U.S. ex rel. London v. Phelps, 22 Fed. (2d) 288, certiorari denied 276 U.S. 630, 72 L. Ed. 741; The Brazil, 134 Fed. (2d) 929; Quinlan v. Houston and T.C. Ry. Co., 34 S.W. 738; People ex rel. Everson v. Lorillard, 135 N.Y. 285, 31 N.E. 1011; Three Heirs of Ludlow v. Johnson, 3 Ohio Rep. 553; 25 R.C.L. 907. (8) The act does not authorize the payment of taxes by the commission. Act of Congress approved April 13, 1934, 48 Stat. 577; Act of Congress approved June 14, 1938, 52 Stat. 679; Black Law Dictionary (3rd Ed.), p. 947. (9) It was the intention of Congress to exempt from taxation the Mississippi River Bridge, and this Honorable Court should carry out such intention. Helvering v. N.Y. Trust Co., 292 U.S. 455, 78 L. Ed. 1361; State v. Schwartzman, 225 Mo. App. 577, 40 S.W. (2d) 479; Nashville Ry. v. Commonwealth, 30 S.W. 200; Pittman v. H.O.L.C., 308 U.S. 21, 84 L. Ed. 11; People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N.E. 537; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 247; Phoenix Assn. Co. v. Fire Dept. of Montgomery, 117 Ala. 631, 23 So. 843, 42 L.R.A. 468; Proprietors Rural Cemetery v. Comrs. of Worcester County, 25 N.E. 618. (10) The imposition of this tax would interfere with the purposes of the act. Act of Congress approved June 14, 1938, 52 Stat. 679; State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, 334 Mo. 220, 65 S.W. (2d) 943; State ex rel. Baumann v. Bowles, 342 Mo. 357, 115 S.W. (2d) 805. (11) The Cairo Bridge Commission is such an arm of the federal government that is not subject to taxation. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229; Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 87 L. Ed. 1504; State ex rel. Baumann v. Bowles, 342 Mo. 357, 115 S.W. (2d) 805; United States v. Query, 21 Fed. Supp. 784; United States v. City of Philadelphia, 48 Fed. Supp. 379; In re Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp., 127 Fed. (2d) 657; Coronado Oil & Gas Co. v. Burnet, 285 U.S. 393, 76 L. Ed. 815; Grand Canyon v. Treat, 95 Pac. 187. (12) Certorari is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v. Dawson, 284 Mo. 490, 225 S.W. 97; State ex rel. v. Caldwell, 310 Mo. 397, 276 S.W. 631; Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 317 Mo. 1298, 298 S.W. 732; State ex rel. v. Neaf, 346 Mo. 86, 139 S.W. (2d) 958; State ex rel. v. Evans, 346 Mo. 209, 139 S.W. (2d) 967; State ex rel. v. Corneli, 347 Mo. 932, 149 S.W. (2d) 815; State ex rel. Ferguson v. Donnell, 349 Mo. 975, 163 S.W. (2d) 940.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Robert J. Flanagan, Assistant Attorney General; Tyre W. Burton of counsel.

(1) The Cairo Bridge Commission is not such an arm of the Federal government that it is not subject to taxation. United States v. Query, 21 F. Supp. 784, 786; Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 58 S. Ct. 969, 82 L. Ed. 1427; Miller v. City of Greenville, 138 F. (2d) 712. (2) The construction of a Federal Act by a Federal court is conclusive on the State court. Miller v. City of Greenville, 138 F. (2d) 712; 14 Am. Jur., p. 339, sec. 121; Foster Lumber Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 270 Mo. 629; State ex rel. Railroad Co. v. Nortoni, 55 S.W. (2d) 272, 331 Mo. 764. (3) Congress has not exempted from taxation the Mississippi River Bridge, the property of the Cairo Bridge Commission. State v. Lloyd, 320 Mo. 336, 7 S.W. (2d) 344. (4) The construction placed on this act by the Congress and the President is persuasive. Miller v. City of Greenville, 138 F. (2d) l.c. 717; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 32 S.W. (2d) 281; State ex rel Hanlon v. City of Maplewood, 99 S.W. (2d) 138; State ex rel. Union Electric L. & P. Co. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 399. (5) The taxing of the bridge would not be contrary to the provisions of the act. Miller v. City of Greenville, 138 F. (2d) 712.

ELLISON, J.

This is an original proceeding in certiorari on relation of the Cairo Bridge Commission, a Federal non-profit corporation, to review the records of the State Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization pertaining to orders made by them on September 20, 1943, assessing the property of the relator in Mississippi county for state taxation at a valuation of $400,000. The property thus assessed was the west half of a bridge across the Mississippi River, owned by the relator. The facts

181 S.W.2d 497

are undisputed. The sole issue is one of law — whether said orders were illegal and in excess of the jurisdiction of the Tax Commission and the Board of Equalization.

The relator contends the bridge is an agency or instrumentality of the United States and exempt from State taxation on two theories: (1) immunity implied from its nature and purposes; (2) because of the express provisions of the Act of Congress under which it was purchased by relator. The respondent...