State ex rel. Cairo Bridge Com'n v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 05 June 1944
• Docket Number: 38892
• Citation: 181 S.W.2d 496,352 Mo. 1136
• 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

352 Mo. 1136

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

June 5, 1944

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1944.

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 F.2d 48, rehearing denied 287 U.S. 644, 77 L.Ed. 557; Howell v. Port of New York Authority, 34 F.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 F.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 construction 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 F.2d 288, certiorari denied 276 U.S. 630, 72 L.Ed. 741; The Brazil, 134 F.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 F.Supp. 784; United States v. City of Philadelphia, 48 F.Supp. 379; In re Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp., 127 F.2d 657; Coronado Oil & Gas Co. v. Burnet, 285 U.S. 393, 76 L.Ed. 815; Grand Canyon v. Treat, 95 P. 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.

OPINION

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 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 members of said State taxing agencies assert the doctrine of implied tax immunity will not protect the relator in this instance because the bridge is not owned, controlled or operated by the United States, nor is it an instrumentality essential to the exercise of the functions of Federal government. With respect to relator's claim of express immunity, respondents deny the Act of Congress under which the bridge was purchased does exempt the bridge from state taxation. This raises a question of statutory construction which involves certain references made by that Act to a prior Act of Congress creating the relator Cairo Bridge Commission. It is the only question we shall discuss, since we think it is decisive of the case.

By an Act of Congress approved April 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 577) the relator Cairo Bridge Commission was created as a body corporate and politic with perpetual succession but with no capital stock or shares of interest or participation; "and all revenues and receipts thereof shall be applied to the purpose specified in this Act." ^[1] It was authorized to construct, maintain and operate a bridge and approaches across the Ohio River at or near the City of Cairo, Illinois; and to purchase, maintain and operate ferries across the Ohio and/or Mississippi Rivers within ten miles of the location selected for the bridge.

Sec. 4 of the Act authorized the Bridge Commission to provide for the payment of the cost of the bridge appurtenances and ferries by issuing, repurchasing, paying and retiring negotiable bonds maturing in not exceeding 40 years and bearing not exceeding 6% interest per annum. The outlay for these purposes was to be "payable solely from the sinking fund provided in accordance with this Act." The sinking fund was to be created from bridge tolls. And the same Sec. 4 of the Act further provided: "The...