State ex rel. McKee v. Clements
| Decision Date | 02 March 1920 |
| Citation | 219 S.W. 900,281 Mo. 195 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. RAY McKEE, Collector of the Revenue, v. ALBINA C. CLEMENTS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. -- Hon. G. A. Watson, Special Judge.
Affirmed.
Charles J. Wright and McLain Jones for appellant.
(1) The certified copy of the back-tax bill made out in the name of Albina C. Clements was not admissible as evidence, for the reason that the assessment of the lands sued upon for the years mentioned in said petition were not assessed to the said Albina C. Clements, and the back-tax bill as offered as prima-facie evidence must substantially conform to the back-tax book and the back-tax book as offered in evidence showed the land assessed for the years in controversy in this proceeding to be assessed to C. C. Clements. Secs. 11372 11498, R. S. 1909; State ex rel. v. Scott, 96 Mo 72. (2) The law requires a valid assessment of the land to the true owner. Yender v. Wheeler, 9 Tex. 408; Vestal v. Morris, 39 P. 96; Johnson v. McIntire 4 Ky. (Bib.) 295; Redmond v. Banks, 60 Miss. 293; Sutton v. Calhoun, 14 La. Ann. 209. A valid assessment of the property to the true owner, and notice of the judgment rendered against him, are indispensible to the validity of a tax title. Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162. The assessment must be made against the owner when known. Not against the property, and must be as certain to him as with respect to anything else. Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609. "If the assessment is void the tax is void." City of Hannibal v. Bowman, 98 Mo.App. 103. A failure to properly assess the property renders the tax void, and all proceedings to enforce it are nullities. Phelps v. Brumback, 107 Mo.App. 16. A tax deed made in pursuance of an assessment against one who is not by the records shown to be the owner at the time is void. Brown v. Hartford, 173 Mo. 183; Wilson v. Fisher, 172 Mo. 10; State ex rel. v. Burroughs, 174 Mo. 70; Hubbard v. Gilpin, 57 Mo. 441. (3) Statutes requiring real estate to be listed and assessed in the name of owner are mandatory and not merely directly, and assessment, made in the name of one, who is not the owner of the property, when the true owner is known or, by the exercise of ordinary care, could be discovered, is generally void, and will not support any proceedings for the enforcement of the tax, unless such errors are cured by statute. St. Louis v. Wenneker, 145 Mo. 230; Jackson v. Mack, 74 Mo. 61; Hein v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162.
Fred A. Moon for respondent.
(1) Each tract of land is chargeable with its own taxes, no matter in whose name it may have been assessed. Sec. 11385, R. S. 1909; State ex rel. v. Hurt, 113 Mo. 93; Cape Girardeau v. Bunough, 112 Mo. 559. The law as contended for by appellant and as laid down in Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162, was changed by the adoption of the foregoing statute in 1872. Laws 1872, p. 124. (2) When respondent showed that property was duly assessed and taxes levied and extended on the tax books, and that they remained unpaid, it was entitled to judgment, regardless of the tax bills. The suit is not founded on the back tax bills. State ex rel. Miller v. Hutchinson, 116 Mo. 402; State ex rel. v. Bank, 144 Mo. 386. (3) At an early date in the state under statutes then in force, some of the objections here urged by the defendant might have been valid, but the more liberal statutes of recent years and the decisions of this court construing them deprive these various assignments of all force. State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 286.
RAGLAND, C. Brown and Small, CC., concur.
This is a suit by the State, at the relation and to the use of the City Collector of the City of Springfield, to enforce the State's lien for certain delinquent taxes which had been assessed against two distinct parcels of land in said city and which were due in the years 1911, 1912 and 1913, respectively. The assessor's books offered in evidence at the trial showed that both tracts had been assessed in the name of one C. C. Clements and that all the taxes in controversy were based on such assessments. It was stipulated that the defendant at the time of the several assessments was the owner of both tracts; that she acquired tract 1 by the will of Dr. C. C. Clements, which was duly probated and thereafter recorded in the proper office January 5, 1906; and that she purchased tract 2 with her separate means in 1887, taking the title in her own name and duly recording the conveyance thereof. It was also admitted by defendant that the taxes sought to be collected by this preceding were unpaid and that they constituted valid liens against the respective tracts of land described in the petition, unless the assessments in the name of C. C. Clements on which they were based rendered them invalid.
The court found the issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment accordingly. From the judgment so rendered defendant appeals.
I. The only question for decision is whether the assessments were invalid because not made in the name of the owner of the land. The City of Springfield during the years in which the several assessments were made was organized as a city of the third class. The statute then governing such cities required the city assessor jointly with the county assessor to assess all property in such city both real and personal, and that the assessments of city property, as made by the city and county assessors, respectively, should conform to each other. The ordinances of the City of Springfield relating to the assessment of property are not before us, but it should be presumed that they conform to the statutes in respect thereto. Both parties have briefed the case on the theory that the general statutes of the State governing the assessment of lands for taxation are controlling. In disposing of the question under consideration we will accord them such effect.
II. In prescribing the manner of making that part of the assessor's book denominated the "land list," Section 11372, Revised Statutes 1909, provides that all lands "shall be placed in the 'land list,' with the owner's name, if known, and if not, then the name of the original patentee, grantee or purchaser from the Federal Government, . . . opposite thereto." Section 11374, applicable to counties having a population of 40,000 or more, such as the one in which the City of Springfield is located, requires that the assessor be provided with a "real estate book" which shall contain all lands subject to assessment, that the book shall be tabular in form with suitable captions and separate columns, and that the first column shall contain the name of the owner or owners, if known, if not, the name of the party who paid the last tax; if no tax has ever been paid, then the name of the original patentee, etc. In pari materia with the foregoing sections, is Section 11385, which is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial