State ex rel. Halpin v. Powers

• Decision Date: 31 October 1878
• Citation: 68 Mo. 320
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. HALPIN v. POWERS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

68 Mo. 320

THE STATE ex rel. HALPIN

v.POWERS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1878.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Proceeding by certiorari to bring up the record of the board of equalization of the city of St. Louis. The petition alleged that in 1876, certain described real estate of relator, in said city, was valued for taxation at a specific sum; that under the law of this State said real estate was liable to be assessed once in two years only, and that being legally and properly assessed in 1876, it was not again subject to assessment for taxes till the year 1878, yet, notwithstanding this fact, the assessor of the city of St. Louis did, without any authority of law whatever, list, assess and return the said real estate in the year 1877, for the basis of taxation in the year 1878, and the taxes for 1878 have been extended on the assessment so made in 1877, and a higher valuation is placed on the same than was placed thereon in the assessment of 1876, and the relator appealed from the said assessment of 1877, to the board of equalization of the city of St. Louis, whose duty it was by law to rectify and correct all mistakes, &c., and said board reduced to some extent the illegal and unauthorized assessment of 1877, but left the same above the assessment of 1876, and refused to restore it to the assessment of the latter year, &c., wherefore a writ of certiorari is prayed, commanding respondents to return into this court the proceedings aforesaid, &c.

The respondents duly made a return and answer setting forth their powers under the law, and the nature of the appeal of relator to them, and that it did not involve the question as to the validity of the annual assessment of real estate in the city of St. Louis, nor was such question presented to them, nor did they decide such question, nor have any power so to do, and a copy of the record of respondents' action on relator's appeal was incorporated in the return, showing the only question presented by said appeal and determined by respondents to have been the question of the cash value of relator's said real estate upon August 1st, 1877, and upon which question relief was afforded to relator by respondents, but not to the extent demanded by him.

The relator demurred to the return on the ground that, under the constitution and laws of this State, there could be no assessment of real estate in St. Louis in 1877.R. F. Wingate and Wagner, Dyer & Emmons for relator.

Certiorari brings up the whole record, and the court will pass upon the validity of the law under which respondents acted. Milwaukee Town Co., v. Schubal, 20 Wis. 594; State, &c., v. St. Louis Co., 47 Mo. 594. The assessment was illegal.

J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, and Leverett Bell for respondents.

The question whether real estate in the city of St. Louis can be annually valued for the purposes of taxation, does not arise upon this record, because this question was not before respondents nor decided by them; therefore cannot, in this proceeding, review it. Hannibal, &c., R. R. Co. v. Morton, 27 Mo. 317; State ex rel. Lathrop v. Dowling, 50 Mo. 134; Rogers v. County Court of Clinton Co., 60 Mo. 101; Hannibal, &c., R. R. Co. v. State Board of Equal., 64 Mo. 294. In any event, however, under the laws of this State, the assessment, as made, was proper. The action of the officers will not be set aside if the question is one of doubt. Cooley's Con. Lim., *68; Union Ins. Co. v. Hoge, 21 How. 35, 66; State v. Mayhew, 2 Gill (Md.) 487, 497; Moers v. Reading,21 Pa. St. 188, 201; U. S. v. Gilmore, 8 Wall. 330; Lafayette R. R. v. Geiger 34 Ind. 185, 203.

HOUGH, J.

The assessor in the city of St. Louis assessed the petitioner's real estate in the year 1877 for the taxes of 1878. On appeal to the board of equalization of the city of St. Louis, the petitioner sought a reduction of the valuation, because, as he alleged, it was greater than that fixed upon it in former years, and greater than its actual cash value. The valuation was reduced ten per cent. The petitioner now brings this assessment before us, and alleges that the same is illegal and void; that under the law real estate can only be assessed biennially, that the valuation of the petitioner's property in 1876, the time fixed by law for the biennial assessment, should have been adopted as the basis of taxation for 1877, and that said valuation could not be changed by the board of equalization.

1. CERTIORARI: petition: pleading.

In a proceeding by certiorari in this court, the petition for the writ may be regarded as in the nature of an assignment of errors on the record sought to be reviewed, in the absence of any more formal assignment of errors after the record is returned to this court. Further than this the petition is not to be viewed as a pleading in the cause. The record of the inferior tribunal is to be examined by us just as it would be, if it could be and were brought before us by a writ of error or an appeal. The record brought here may be amended, as in other cases, by the stipulation of the parties, but no issues of law or fact are to be made by the petition or writ, and return, to be tried by us, as in proceedings by mandamus or quo warranto. State ex rel. Lathrop v. Dowling, 50 Mo. 134.

The only question is, is there error in the record of the inferior tribunal brought before us by the writ? As the assessment record returned in the present proceeding does not show what the valuation of the petitioner's property was in the year 1876, the year in which it is claimed that the biennial assessment is, by law, required to be made elsewhere in the State, it does not appear that the petitioner has been damaged, and we might, therefore, decline to interfere with the action of the board of equalization on that ground; but as the question sought to be presented has been stated in argument to be one of great importance to the State, as well as the tax-payers in the city of St. Louis, we will proceed to inquire whether annual assessments of real estate in the city of St. Louis are allowed by law.

2, TAXATION: annual assessment.

The 20th section of article 9 of the constitution, which provided for the separation of the city from the county, authorized the people of the city to adopt a charter for their government which should be in harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of Missouri, and should take the place of and supersede the charter of St. Louis and all amendments thereof. The 23rd section of the same article provides that the city of St. Louis shall collect the State revenue in the same manner as if it were a county. As the city government, authorized by the constitution for the city of St. Louis, is entirely different in its organization from that of the counties, and as...