State ex rel. Mount Pleasant Township v. Hall
| Citation | 262 S.W. 720,304 Mo. 83 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 24073 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. MOUNT PLEASANT TOWNSHIP, Appellant, v. J. W. HALL et al |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court; Hon. C. A. Calvird, Judge.
Dismissed.
Silvers & Silvers for appellant.
DeArmond & Maxey and D. C. Chastain for respondents.
The purpose of this action was to compel defendants as clerk and judges of the Bates County Court, by mandamus to extend a special road-and-bridge tax levied by the township board of relator -- said county being under township organization -- against property within the limits of five special road districts which were organized under Article 13, Chapter 98, Revised Statutes 1919.
The levy above mentioned was for the taxes of 1921. The commissioners of the five special road districts had made road-and-bridge levies for their respective districts, and the respondents, while extending all other tax certified by the Township Board, declined to levy or extend the special road levy made by the township board against property in the special road districts. Upon the filing of respondents' return, the case was tried by the court on an agreed statement of facts. It was held by the court, in legal effect, that inasmuch as all control of the roads and bridges in a special road district is withdrawn from the township board, upon the organization of a special road district, the Legislature intended that the township board should have road-fund taxing power only co-extensive with its territorial limits for road purposes. The trial court dismissed the mandamus proceeding, and entered a regular judgment of dismissal in favor of respondents.
Upon relator's motion for a new trial being overruled, it appealed the cause to this court.
I. On April 14, 1924, counsel for respondents filed in this court, a verified motion, alleging therein that the terms of J. W. Hall, clerk of Bates County, Missouri, and of said R. F. Harper, G. T. Wolfe and F. A. Strickland, as judges of the county court of said county, have expired, and that none of these respondents hold said offices, or either of them; that since January 1, 1923, C. W. Ray has been the duly elected, qualified and acting clerk of said county court; and since said date, T. D. Embree, Frank Fix and W. P. Black have been the duly elected, qualified and acting judges of the county court aforesaid. Respondents assert that they have no further interest in the subject-matter of this controversy, and would be powerless to comply with the order of the court should a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued against them. Having gone out of office, they ask that the action be abated as to them. A copy of the above motion was served on counsel for relator on April 12, 1924, and no suggestions have been filed in opposition to said motion. We will determine, in the succeeding proposition, what disposition should be made of said motion.
II. Since the trial of this case in the court below, Division One decided the case of State ex rel. Monett Special Road District v. Barry County, 258 S.W. 710, and following; and this Division delivered an opinion in State ex rel. Erwin v. Holman, 256 S.W. 776, and following. We express no opinion as to whether said cases, or either of them, have any bearing on the question as to whether Mount Pleasant Township had the legal right to maintain an action of this character under the circumstances presented in the record before us, but have simply referred to these cases in passing, so that the parties in interest might have their attention called thereto, should similar action be contemplated by said township against the present clerk and judges of the Bates County Court.
It is evident from the undisputed facts in this case, that, if it should be reversed and remanded, the relator could proceed no further against these respondents, whose respective terms of office had expired. It is equally certain that this court could not enter a judgment and issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, for the same reason above indicated.
In State ex rel. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial