State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Caulfield

• Citation: 62 S.W.2d 818,333 Mo. 270
• Decision Date: 24 July 1933
• Docket Number: 32667
• Parties: State of Missouri at the Relation of the City of St. Louis, a Municipal Corporation, Relator, v. Henry S. Caulfield, Stratton Shartel, L. D. Thompson, Charles U. Becker and Larry Brunk, Constituting the Board of Equalization of the State; John T. Waddill, Chairman of the State Tax Commission, Forrest Smith and Jesse A. Mitchell, Members of the State Tax Commission, and William M. Chapman, Secretary of the State Board of Equalization and Secretary of the State Tax Commission
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

62 S.W.2d 818

333 Mo. 270

State of Missouri at the Relation of the City of St. Louis, a Municipal Corporation, Relator, v. Henry S. Caulfield, Stratton Shartel, L. D. Thompson, Charles U. Becker and Larry Brunk, Constituting the Board of Equalization of the State; John T. Waddill, Chairman of the State Tax Commission, Forrest Smith and Jesse A. Mitchell, Members of the State Tax Commission, and William M. Chapman, Secretary of the State Board of Equalization and Secretary of the State Tax Commission

No. 32667

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 24, 1933

Record quashed in part.

Julius T. Muench and Charles J. Dolan for relator.

(1) The State Board of Equalization has no power to raise or lower values of specific properties within a class, its authority being limited to the equalization of valuation of each class as a whole among the several counties of the State. First Trust Co. v. Wells, 324 Mo. 306, 23 S.W.2d 108; State ex rel. v. Vaile, 122 Mo. 33, 26 S.W. 672. (2) Section 9856, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929, which makes it the duty of the taxing authorities of the city of St Louis to keep up the aggregate valuation of real property in the said city to the aggregate amount fixed by the State Tax Commission, renders it impossible to give effect to a reduction ordered by the State Board of Equalization after the aggregate valuation of the real property in the city had been so fixed and determined. Mercantile Trust Co. v Schramm, 269 Mo. 487; State ex rel. v. Dircks, 321 Mo 345, 11 S.W.2d 38.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, and Gilbert Lamb, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

Under the Constitution and Laws of Missouri, the State Board of Equalization has no authority to raise or lower the valuation for taxation purposes on any particular piece of property within a class. Const. of Mo., art. X, sec. 18; Art. V, ch 59, R. S. 1929; Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489; State v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 604; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 19 S.W.2d 751; Trust Co. v. Wells, 324 Mo. 312.

Charles G. Revelle and Courtney S. Goodman, amici curiae.

(1) The Constitution and statutes of this State require uniformity and equality in the assessment and taxation of all property. Trust Company v. Shramm, 269 Mo. 489; Railroad Co. v. Board of Equalizers, 85 F. 302; Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schultzhauer, 317 Mo. 1298; Bridge Co. v. Blaser, 318 Mo. 373; Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021. (2) Until the Legislature lodged in the State Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization the power to grant relief against fraudulent and unlawful assessments of individual property, a property owner discriminated against could resort to a court of equity for relief. Boonville Natl. Bank v. Schultzhauer, 317 Mo. 1298; Bridge Co. v. Blaser, 318 Mo. 373; Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W.2d 1021. (3) Since the Legislature lodged such power in the Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization, a property owner so discriminated against must first seek relief through the Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization. Brinkerhoff Trust Co. v. Hill, 19 S.W.2d 746; Trust Co. v. Wells, 23 S.W.2d 108. (4) The Tax Commission is under the supervision of the State Board of Equalization, and none of its acts become effective until approved by the State Board of Equalization. Secs. 9854, 9855, R. S. 1929; Sec. 18, Art. X, State Const.; State ex rel. v. Tax Commission, 295 Mo. 298, 243 S.W. 887. (5) The legislative act creating the Tax Commission and placing its action under the supervision of the State Board of Equalization conferred new and additional powers upon the State Board of Equalization and authorized it to make the order modifying the finding and order of the Tax Commission. (6) The State Board of Equalization acts judicially and its findings are final and conclusive. Bank of Carthage v. Thomas, 48 S.W.2d 364; State ex rel. v. Bethreds, 320 Mo. 1164; State ex rel. v. Tax Commission, 295 Mo. 298. (7) Courts will not so interpret a statute as to defeat its apparent purpose nor give it a meaning which makes it vain or useless or foolish. State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 238 Mo. 605; State ex rel. v. Long, 275 Mo. 169; State ex rel. v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 271; State ex rel. v. Dunn, 277 Mo. 38; Decker v. Deimer, 229 Mo. 296. (8) An interpretation such as relator seeks of the State Commission Act would make it a vain, useless and foolish thing, as is evident from the results which relator seeks. (9) If the act were interpreted as not authorizing the State Board of Equalization to make the order which relator challenges, then there has been no valid assessment of the property involved. Secs. 9854, 9855, 9856, 9857, R. S. 1929. (10) The action of the City Board of Equalization in adjourning before the Tax Commission and State Board of Equalization had finally acted had no effect on the property owner's remedy or the action of the Tax Commission and State Board of Equalization. State v. Jones, 41 S.W.2d 393; Trust Co. v. Wells, 23 S.W.2d 108; State ex rel. v. Tax Commission, 243 S.W. 889.

OPINION

Hays, J.

The relator, the city of St. Louis, sued out of this court a writ of certiorari directed to the respondents, the State Board of Equalization and the State Tax Commission, for the purpose of reviewing the record of said board in the matter of the assessment of the property known as the Continental Life Building in said city and owned by the Grand National Bank and the Continental Life Insurance Company. The respondents waived the issuance of our writ and made return to relator's petition in lieu of the writ, and issue was joined upon said return and relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The return brings up the record as made by said board and the same is accompanied by various exhibits referred to therein. Among these exhibits are (1) the complaint of said property owners filed with respondent commission; (2) the order of said commission for a hearing on the complaint; (3) the report, finding and assessment made by the agent of the Tax Commission, and the order of said commission approving said findings and assessment of said agent; (4) certain papers filed with said Board of Equalization by said property owners as complainants; and (5) report of the commission to the Board of Equalization of the former's proceedings and orders, together with a transcript of the evidence heard by said commission.

Notwithstanding the return made of said evidence, the same is not a part of the record, and is therefore not for our consideration and will be disregarded since the writ of certiorari serves to bring up only the record proper of the Board of Equalization. [State ex rel. McCune v. Carter, 279 Mo. 304, 214 S.W. 180; State ex rel. Heimburger v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601, 109 S.W. 758; Ward v. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo. 309, 36 S.W. 648; State ex rel. Harrah v. Cauthorn, 40 Mo.App. l. c. 96.]

The facts leading up to the proceeding had before the Tax Commission, as well as the facts contained in the record of the Board of Equalization are stated in the briefs filed by amici curiae, who as attorneys represented the property owners throughout the proceedings prior to the issuance of the writ herein. With slight change such statement is as follows:

"At all the times involved in this record the property whose assessment is in issue was jointly owned by the Continental Life Insurance Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and Grand National Bank, St. Louis, Missouri. The property involved is an office building located on Olive Street, near Grand Avenue, and is used for general office purposes. The building, exclusive of the land on which same is located, was assessed by the Assessor at $ 2,067,500, and the parcel of land was assessed by the Assessor at $ 132,500. The assessment so made by the Assessor on the parcel of land was deemed reasonable and just by the property owners, but the assessment placed on the building was deemed excessive and out of all proportion and equality with assessment placed on property of similar or same use, value and character in the City of St. Louis.

"The property owners took their appeal to the City Board of Equalization, which sustained the assessment made by the Assessor. Thereupon the property owners duly filed their joint complaint and appeal with the State Tax Commission. A hearing on such complaint and appeal was thereupon conducted, and in August thereafter the State Tax Commission found the assessment placed on the property by the Assessor and the City Board of Equalization to be excessive and assessed both the real estate and the building located thereon at $ 1,807,175, which represented an assessment of $ 1,674,675, on the building, or a reduction of $ 392,825 in the assessment made by the Assessor and the City Board of Equalization.

"Thereafter the State Tax Commission submitted to the State Board of Equalization its report of this assessment and asked for the approval thereof by the State Board of Equalization. The State Board of Equalization thereafter conducted a hearing on the objections and exceptions of the property owners to the valuation certified by the Tax Commission, and after such hearing found that this building was of the same class, character, value, use and kind of other buildings in St. Louis which were assessed on the average basis of $ 6.28 per square foot; that this building should be assessed and valued on the same basis; 'and that the assessed valuation of said building as of June 1, 1931, should be and is declared to be $ 691,145.40.'"

And upon such finding and in connection therewith the board entered its final orders, which we quote verbatim, as follows:

"Now therefore, it is ordered that the report of the State Tax Commission, fixing the valuation and assessment of said property at...