State ex rel. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Becker

• Citation: 41 S.W.2d 188,328 Mo. 541
• Parties: The State ex rel. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Charles U. Becker, Secretary of State
• Decision Date: 29 July 1931
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

41 S.W.2d 188

328 Mo. 541

The State ex rel. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Charles U. Becker, Secretary of State

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 29, 1931

Peremptory writ awarded.

Luther Burns, Henry S. Conrad, L. E. Durham and Hale Houts for relator.

(1) The question presented by the record is one of law. Some of the conclusions of law set up by the petition are denied by the return, but the facts are admitted. State ex rel. Heuller v. Thompson, 316 Mo. 275. (2) In his contention that the statutory provision in question is unconstitutional, Section 3 of Article X is the only provision invoked by respondent and is the only one that could apply to any controversy as to the validity of the provision in question. Bankers Life Co. v. Chorn, 186 S.W. 683; Mass. Bond & Ins. Co. v Chorn, 274 Mo. 29; Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 351; St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 449; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 217. (3) Relator has not been by law subjected to the tax demanded by respondent. No constitutional question is therefore presented and relator is entitled to the relief prayed for. State ex rel. Light & Power Co. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 858; State ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Gehner, 280 S.W. 419; State v. Railway Co., 77 Mo. 214. (4) The statute is valid and the attack upon it could not be sustained even at the instance of a party in a position to question it. Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 357; St. Louis v. Baskowitz, 273 Mo. 542; St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 449; State ex rel. v Henderson, 160 Mo. 217; Souffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 585; Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 820; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 32 S.W.2d 286; State ex rel. Railroad v. Cook, 171 Mo. 348; State ex rel Trammel v. Ry. Co., 101 Mo. 136; University v. People, 99 U.S. 309; Wright v. Ga. Railroad & Banking Co., 216 U.S. 420; Wright v. Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 680.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Walter E. Sloat, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) Respondent admits that the question presented in the case at bar is one of law. (2) Sec. 4598, R. S. 1929, formerly Sec. 9792, R. S. 1919, as amended, Laws 1927, page 287, under which relator claims exemption from license tax for renewal of its charter, is unconstitutional in part, in violation of Sec. 3, Art. X, Constitution of Missouri. (a) The statute under which relator claims exemption from a renewal tax is in violation of said Section 3, in that it grants to foreign railroad corporations exemptions which are not allowed domestic railroad corporations, thereby violating the constitutional provision on uniformity of taxation. (b) Respondent is not unmindful of the holding of this court to the effect that a ministerial or executive officer cannot raise a constitutional question. State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 64; State ex rel. v. Johnston, 234 Mo. 350. This point has been fully annotated. 30 A. L. R. 378. Believing however, that the constitutional question involved is inherent in the case at bar we nevertheless present for the court's consideration our authorities on the constitutional question. (c) It has long been the rule in this State, and has been so held by this court many times, that Section 3, Article X, Constitution of Missouri, relating to uniformity of taxation, applies to license taxes as well as property taxes. St. Louis v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 146; St. Louis v. Bowler, 94 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Consolidated Coal Co., 113 Mo. 88; Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 390; St. Charles ex rel. Palmer v. Schulte, 305 Mo. 128; State ex rel. Asotsky v. Regan, 317 Mo. 1222. (d) There is no question as to the right of the Legislature to classify property for purposes of taxation; however, this classification must include all who belong to the same class. Kansas City v. Whipple, 136 Mo. 479; Sams v. Railroad Co., 174 Mo. 73; Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 357. (3) The statutes of Missouri provide for reorganization or renewal taxes against domestic corporations as well as foreign corporations. (a) All corporations organized under the laws of this State must pay a license fee to extend or renew their charters. Sec. 4556, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. Kinloch Tel. Co. v. Roach, 269 Mo. 442. (b) When a foreign corporation enters the State for the purpose of doing business, that corporation is affected by the same laws as is the domestic corporation. State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 377; State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co., 194 Mo. 149; State ex rel. v. Cook, 171 Mo. 362; Roeder v. Robertson, 202 Mo. 534; Stockard on Missouri Corp. Law, sec. 465, p. 232. The Missouri statutes provide that foreign corporations shall be subjected to all the liabilities, restrictions and duties which may be imposed upon domestic corporations of the same nature. Sec. 4596, R. S. 1929. (4) It was never the intent of the General Assembly that the provision in Sec. 4598, R. S. 1929, formerly Sec. 9792, R. S. 1919, as amended, Laws 1927, p. 387, wherein foreign railroad corporations are exempted from paying a fee for renewing their charter should be a never-ending exemption. State ex rel. v. Cook, 171 Mo. 348. (a) This statute should be construed by the court together with other statutes relative to foreign and domestic corporations as they pertain to license taxes, and harmonized if possible. State ex rel. Thompson v. Dirckx, 11 S.W.2d 41; State ex inf. Bothwell v. Schuster, 285 Mo. 407; State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 14 S.W.2d 1001. (b) In construing statutes injustice will not be imputed to the Legislature by interpreting a statute so it will produce harsh or unreasonable results, and the reason of the law should prevail over the letter. Stack v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 411; St. Louis v. Christian College, 257 Mo. 552; Gist v. Construction Co., 224 Mo. 379; Rutter v. Carothers, 223 Mo. 643; Straughan v. Meyers, 268 Mo. 588. (c) The construction placed upon a statute by an executive department charged with its enforcement is entitled to consideration by the court. State ex rel. White v. Fendorff, 317 Mo. 586; State ex rel. Life Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 292 Mo. 355; State ex rel. v. Cupples Station L. H. & P. Co., 283 Mo. 144.

OPINION

Henwood, J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus, by which relator seeks to compel respondent to issue to it a renewal of its license to do business in this State for the period of its charter as extended under the laws of Illinois and Iowa, upon the payment of a tax based on the increase in its capital stock from $ 140,000,000 to $ 170,000,000 (and not based on its entire capital stock, as demanded by respondent), and upon compliance in other particulars with the laws of this State relating to such matters.

Our alternative writ has been issued, and respondent has filed his return thereto, and relator has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Relator alleges, in its petition, that it was duly incorporated on June 2, 1880, under the laws of Illinois and Iowa; that its charter provided it should continue for fifty years, and that, thereafter, its charter could be extended as provided by the laws of those states; that its original capital stock was $ 50,000,000; that its capital stock was increased to $ 75,000,000 in 1902, and to $ 140,000,000 in 1921; that it has paid to this State all taxes and fees due on said increases of its capital stock; that its charter was filed in this State on June 14, 1880; that, on November 22, 1902, it was duly authorized to do business in this State, and has ever since operated in this State; that, on the date of its original incorporation, June 2, 1880, it became the owner of various lines of railroad in this State, built in 1869, 1870 and 1871; that said lines of railroad have continued to be and still are its property, and are now operated by it; that in May, 1930, under the provisions of its charter and the laws of Illinois and Iowa, its charter was duly extended for a period of fifty years; that, on or about June 3, 1930, it filed with respondent certificates of the secretaries of state of the states of Illinois and Iowa, in which the extension of its charter and the increase of its capital stock from $ 140,000,000 to $ 170,000,000 are duly certified; that, at the same time, it filed with respondent the affidavit of its principal officer, showing the proportion of said increase of its capital stock which is represented by property located and business transacted in this State, and duly tendered to respondent the tax due this State on said increase of its capital stock; that, notwithstanding its compliance with the laws of this State, respondent refused to renew or extend its license to do business in this State, and still refuses to do so, on the ground that, under the laws of this State, it is his duty to exact from it the payment of a tax based on its entire capital stock; that, by Section 9792, Revised Statutes 1919, it was provided that every company incorporated for the purpose of gain, under the laws of any other state, and doing business within this State, should file, in the office of the Secretary of State, its charter or articles of incorporation, duly authenticated by the proper authority, together with a sworn statement, setting forth the business in which it was engaged or proposed to carry on in this State, and a sworn statement of the proportion of its capital stock which was represented by property located and business transacted in this State; that it was further provided by said statute, that, upon the expiration of a license issued to a foreign corporation, a new certificate and license might be issued, for a period of fifty years, if its corporate existence warranted such extension, and that the statutory requirements relating to the payment of an...