State ex rel. Halferty v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1940
• Docket Number: 37000
• Citation: 145 S.W.2d 116,346 Mo. 1069
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of Clifford T. Halferty, Collector of Revenue of Clay County, Appellant, v. The Kansas City Power & Light Company, a Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

145 S.W.2d 116

346 Mo. 1069

State of Missouri at the relation of Clifford T. Halferty, Collector of Revenue of Clay County, Appellant, v. The Kansas City Power & Light Company, a Corporation

No. 37000

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 3, 1940

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court; Hon. James S. Rooney Judge.

Affirmed.

Conn Withers, Leslie E. Bates and Lawson & Hale for appellant.

(1) The law under which Public Water Supply District No. 1, of Clay County, Missouri, was organized authorizes and directs that taxes be levied and collected in its behalf of all taxable property in the district. Respondent's property is taxable for water district purposes organized under Water District Law of 1935. Secs. 5, 12, Laws 1935, pp. 331, 334; Sec. 10066, R. S. 1929, Laws 1933, pp. 422, 423; Secs. 6, 7 Art. X, Mo. Const., R. S. 1929, pp. 135, 136. (2) The property of respondent involved in this action is distributable property within the meaning of the railroad taxing statute, and the method of assessment, levy and collection of taxes thereon is prescribed by statute. (a) The sole authority of original assessment of respondent's distributable property is in the State Tax Commission. Subdiv. 6, Sec. 9854, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. v Baker, 293 S.W. 401, 316 Mo. 860; Sec. 10066, R. S. 1929; Art. XIII, Ch. 59, R. S. 1929. (b) Valuations fixed for any particular taxing unit are the average per mile value of the railroad's total mileage in the State multiplied by the number of miles of the road in the taxing unit. Secs. 10022, 10024, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. v. Stone, 119 Mo. 675. (c) The apportionment by the State Board of Equalization and the certification by the State Auditor showing the mileage of utility property within the several taxing units is not a power of assessment, but merely a ministerial or clerical duty. State ex rel. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 404, 316 Mo. 865; Secs. 10017-10022, R. S. 1929. (d) Public water districts are public political corporations and as such are municipalities and municipal townships within the meaning of the apportionment statute. Secs. 10022, 10066, R. S. 1929; 42 C. J. 1413; 63 C. J. 98; 58 C. J. 973; Kinder v. Drainage Dist., 291 Mo. 267; Augusta v. Water Dist., 63 A. 663, 101 Me. 148; 26 R. C. L. 785; Drum v. Water Dist., 258 P. 506; Hanslovsky v. Twp., 275 N.W. 720; Township v. Senour, 86 N.E. 440; Smith v. Robersonville, 141 N.C. 149, 53 S.E. 524. (e) Special road districts, drainage districts and sewer districts are also public political corporations with limited government powers and are therefore municipal townships within the meaning of the apportionment statute. Secs. 8061, 8066, 8068, 10887, 10888, 10890, R. S. 1929; Sec. 4, p. 122, Laws 1933, 1934, Special Sess. (3) The State Tax Commission and the State board of equalization have, in the performance and administration of their respective duties, placed upon the statutes in question the identical construction contended for by appellant herein, which construction, in the absence of judicial authority to the contrary, is entitled to great weight with the courts. State ex rel. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 399, 316 Mo. 853; Journal of State Board of Equalization, 137, pp. 227, 264, 239, 385; State ex rel. v. Fendorff, 317 Mo. 579; Lefman v. Schuler, 317 Mo. 671; 59 C. J. 1025-27; Virginia Elec. Co. v. Commonwealth, 194 S.E. 775; State v. Standard Oil Co., 182 So. 531; In re Bernay's Estate, 126 S.W.2d 209; Holmes v. Borgen, 273 N.W. 623; Skelton v. United States, 88 F.2d 599; Kingan Co. v. Smith, 17 F.Supp. 217; Patterson v. Anderson, 20 F.Supp. 799; Hadden v. Tax Comm., 190 S.E. 249. (4) Appellant's petition is substantially in the form prescribed by Section 10039, Revised Statutes 1929, and properly states a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. Sec. 10039, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. v. Ry., 113 Mo. 297; State ex rel. v. Ry., 101 Mo. 136.

Johnson, Lucas, Graves & Fane and Alan F. Wherritt for respondent.

(1) The statutes of Missouri do not provide a method for assessing respondent's distributable property within a public water supply district; therefore, there can be no valid tax on same for such purpose. (a) The exclusive power of original assessment of distributable property of public utilities is vested in the State Tax Commission, and of local property in the county assessor. (b) There is no provision for the assessment of the distributable property of an electric light and power company located in a public water supply district, and in the absence of statutory authority providing for the allocation of distributable property to a taxing subdivision there can be no valid assessment made by the State Tax Commission. (c) There can be no lawful collection of a tax until there is a lawful assessment, and there can be no lawful assessment except in the manner prescribed by law and of property designated for that purpose. Sec. 10066, Laws 1933, p. 422; Secs. 9819, 9854, 10011-10051, R. S. 1929; Laws 1935, p. 327; State ex rel. Hayes v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 618, 37 S.W. 532; State ex rel. Spratt v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 162 Mo. 391, 63 S.W. 495; State ex rel. Union E. L. & P. Co. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 853, 293 S.W. 399; Park v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 70 F.2d 670; Commerce Trust Co. v. Syndicate Lot Co., 208 Mo.App. 261, 232 S.W. 1055; State ex rel. Asotsky v. Regan, 317 Mo. 1216, 298 S.W. 747, 55 A. L. R. 773; State ex rel. Union E. L. & P. Co. v. Gehner, 315 Mo. 666, 286 S.W. 117; State ex rel. Ray v. Paragould, 208 Mo.App. 600, 235 S.W. 499; State ex rel. Buchanan County Power Transmission Co. v. Baker, 320 Mo. 1146, 9 S.W.2d 589; State ex rel. School Dist. of Kansas City v. Waddill, 320 Mo. 1118, 52 S.W.2d 476; State ex rel. Kersey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 304 Mo. 207, 263 S.W. 419; State ex rel. Koeln v. Lesser, 237 Mo. 310, 141 S.W. 888; Normandy Consol. School Dist. v. Wellston Sewer Dist., 77 S.W.2d 477. (2) The term "municipal townships," as used in Sections 10012 and 10022, Revised Statutes 1929, has a clear, unambiguous meaning and cannot be amplified to include within its scope "public water supply district." Secs. 10012, 10022, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. Kinder v. Little River Drain. Dist., 291 Mo. 267, 236 S.W. 848; Ch. 86, R. S. 1929. (3) The mere fact that the State Tax Commission has in the past made assessments of distributable property of public utilities located in road districts, school districts, and drainage districts cannot adjudicate the legality of such acts, nor can it be said to determine the validity of an assessment of such property within a public water supply district. (a) Administrative interpretations of the phrase "municipal township, counties, cities, and incorporated towns" to include road districts do not apply to public water supply districts. (b) Road districts are political subdivisions of counties or cities, while public water supply districts are not. Drainage districts, road districts, etc., may be municipal corporations, but they are not municipal townships. Public water supply districts are neither. Secs. 7868, 7891, 8024, 8150, 8061, R. S. 1929; Ch. 64, Arts. I, II, R. S. 1929.

Cooley, C. Westhues, C., concurs; Bohling, C., absent.

OPINION

COOLEY

This is an action by the Collector of Revenue of Clay County to recover alleged delinquent taxes of Kansas City Light & Power Company, defendant. The trial court sustained defendant's general demurrer to the plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff declined to plead further. His petition was dismissed and he appeals. The appeal involves construction of certain revenue laws of the State, hence our appellate jurisdiction.

The petition alleges Halferty's official character; that defendant was and is a public utility corporation engaged in producing and selling electrical energy to the public and distributing same over a system of transmission lines and other distributing equipment in the county under the supervision and control of the Public Service Commission; that it owned transmission lines and other distributing equipment within the territory comprising Public Water Supply District No. 1, of Clay County (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the water district), alleged to be a "public political corporation" organized pursuant to Laws of Missouri, 1935, p. 327 et seq.; that on June 1st, 1935, defendant had within the water district 265.65 miles of wire transmission lines and that same was subject to assessment and levy of tax for the uses of the water district for the year 1936; that the per mile value of said property in the water district on June 1st, 1935, as fixed by the State Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization was $ 2,691.95, making the aggregate value of defendant's property in the district $ 715,117; that there was assessed and levied against said property for the year 1936, for the uses and purposes of the district, taxes in the sum of $ 1,072.62, which defendant has refused to pay. The petition prays judgment for said tax, with interest and penalties and attorney fees.

The legislative act under which the water district exists (Laws 1935, p. 327 et seq.) provides (Sec. 2) such districts shall be "political corporations" of the State and (Sec. 3) the territory to be included may be wholly within one or more than one county, may take in school districts or parts thereof and cities that do not have a waterworks system, but the territory must be contiguous. By Sec. 5 of the act the district is given power (among others) to contract indebtedness and issue general or special obligation bonds, or both, therefor, as provided in the act and "to certify to the county court or county courts of the county or counties within which such district is situate, the amount or amounts to be provided by the levy of a tax upon all taxable...