State ex rel. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. St. Louis Cnty. Court

• Citation: 13 Mo.App. 53
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, TO USE OF PULLMAN PALACE CAR COMPANY, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 28 November 1882
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

13 Mo.App. 53

STATE OF MISSOURI, TO USE OF PULLMAN PALACE CAR COMPANY, Appellant,

v.ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Nov. 28, 1882.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, LINDLEY, J.

Affirmed.

HITCHCOCK, LUBKE & PLAYER, for the appellant.

LEVERETT BELL, for the respondent.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question which arises upon this record is, whether, under the act of March 10, 1871, relating to the taxation of railroad property, the cars of the Pullman Palace Car Company which were leased by such company to certain railroads in this state, and operated by such railroads as a part of their rolling stock, were taxable as the property of such railroads; or whether, under the general revenue law then in force, such property might lawfully be assessed for taxation by the assessor of St. Louis County, in which county the Pullman Palace Car Company had its chief office for the state of Missouri, as the personal property of such corporation. Section 1 of the abovenamed statute provides that all railroads in this state, “and all other property, real, personal, or mixed, owned by any railroad company, or corporation in this state,” shall be assessed and taxed as specified in this act. It is obvious that the question turns upon the interpretation of the word “owned” as here used. A tax is an impost, or duty levied upon the owners of property, in invitum, for the support of the government. It can only be levied and assessed in the strict mode provided by the statute authorizing its levy and assessment. It is not even a debt in the sense that it can be collected in an ordinary suit at law, unless the statute specifically provides for that mode of collection. Carondelet v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125. In order to justify the taking of any step against the owner of property for the collection of a tax, the officer of the state assuming so to act must put his finger upon some statute authorizing him in terms to take such step. There is no such thing as an equitable or liberal construction of a statute creating a tax, or providing for its assessment or collection. On the contrary, the uniform doctrine of the courts is that such statutes are strictly construed against the government, and that they are to be strictly pursued by the officers of the government who act under them. These are familiar rules, which require no citation of authorities to support them.

Tested by these principles, it seems clear that the word “owned” in the statute under consideration cannot be so construed as to mean “leased” or ““hired.” This seems to have been the understanding of the officers of the state to whom was committed the assessment of railroad property for taxation; for, at a subsequent session, the legislature passed an act changing the law relating to the taxation of the property of railroad companies, so...