State ex rel. Clinton Cnty. v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: 87 Mo. 236
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. CLINTON COUNTY v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

87 Mo. 236

THE STATE ex rel. CLINTON COUNTY

v.THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1885.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.--HON. G. W. DUNN, Judge.

REVERSED.

Strong & Mosman and Thos. E. Turney for appellant.

(1) The court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the evidence. The petition on its face showed that the taxes sued for were taxes other than “the state tax, and tax necessary to pay the funded or bonded debt of the state, the tax for current county expenditures and for schools.” R. S., sec. 6798. The petition was certainly bad and did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. R. S., sec. 6799. (2) The court erred in refusing the instruction prayed by defendant. Revised Statuts, section 6798 to section 6801, were in force from and after March 8, 1879. These were special taxes for the year ending August 1, 1880. The valuation was for August 1, 1879. The property was reported to state board January 1, 1880. R. S., sec. 6866-7. Valuation certified to state auditor April, 1880. Ib. sec. 6868. Assessed by state board third Monday in April, 1880. Ib. sec. 6871. Assessment certified to county court later, say July, 1880. Ib. sec. 6875. Levied thereafter, say July, 1880, by county court. Ib. sec. 6879. Section 6799 was then in force. The county court were guilty of misdemeanor in making this levy. Ib. sec. 6800. The levy was void. R. S., supra; State ex rel. Wilson v. Rainey, 74 Mo. 237; State ex rel. v. Shortridge, 56 Mo. 126; State ex rel. v. Macon County Court, 68 Mo. 29; Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107.

J. M. Lowe for respondent.

NORTON, J.

A railroad interest fund tax amounting to $229.17, and a railroad sinking fund tax for the same amount, was assessed and levied upon the property of defendant by the county court of Clinton county for the year 1880. This suit was brought to enforce the payment of the above tax. Plaintiff had judgment from which defendant appeals. Counsel insist that inasmuch as the above tax sued for was not assessed and levied for current county expenditures the same is void because of non-compliance with the statute authorizing the levy of such a tax.

By section 6,798 of the Revised Statutes, the county courts are empowered to levy taxes not to exceed the rates prescribed by the constitution, viz: “The state tax, and the tax necessary to pay the funded and bonded debt of the state, and the tax for current county expenditures and for schools.”

It is provided by section 6,799, Revised Statutes, that “no other tax for any purpose shall be assessed, levied or collected, except under the following limitations and conditions, viz: The prosecuting attorney or county attorney of any county upon the request of the county court of such county, which request shall be of record with the proceedings of said court, and such court, being first satisfied that there exists a necessity for the assessment, levy and collection of other taxes than those enumerated and specified in the preceding section shall present a petition to the circuit court of his county, or to the judge thereof in vacation, setting forth the facts and specifying the reasons why such other tax or taxes should be assessed, levied and collected, and such circuit court or judge thereof, upon being satisfied of the necessity for such other tax or taxes, and that the assessment, levy and collection thereof will not be in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state, shall make an order directed to the county court of such county commanding such court to have assessed, levied and collected such other tax or taxes, and shall enforce such order by mandamus or otherwise.” The section...