State ex rel. Stone v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 18676.,18676. |
| Citation | 178 S.W. 444 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. STONE, Internal Revenue Collector, v. KANSAS CITY, FT. S. & M. RY. CO. et al |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County. Action by the State, on the relation of J. H. Stone, Collector of Internal Revenue of Bates County, against the Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
This is a suit against said railroad company and its receivers for taxes. There was a judgment for plaintiff for full amount sued for, and defendants have appealed.
The total taxes against defendants' property in Bates county for the year 1912 were $2,349.01 and for the year 1913 they were $2,257.44. The defendants paid all the taxes for the year 1912, except $23.56, and in December, 1913, tendered to the collector $2,228.48 in full payment of the Axes for 1913. The tender was refused.
The real controversy at the trial was in regard to the unpaid balance for the year 1912 and the difference of $28.96 between the total tax for the year 1913 and the amount tendered. Those two disputed amounts represented that portion of the school taxes which defendants contended were illegal, in this: That various school districts in the county, which were formed of cities and adjoining territory, had increased their rate of levy beyond 65 cents on the $100 assessed valuation, and that such excess had resulted in the increase of defendants' taxes by the amounts so in dispute.
John H. Lucas, of Kansas City, for appellants. De Witt C. Chastain, of Butler, for respondent.
ROY, C. (after stating the facts as above).
I. The defendants in apparent good faith contended at the trial of the cause that such disputed portion of the taxes was void by reason of the provisions of section 11 of article 10 of our state Constitution. That contention was decided in favor of the validity of the taxes in an opinion by Faris, J., in State ex rel. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 174 S., W. 64, decided since this appeal was taken. Appellants do not now insist on reopening that question, but protest that they should not be adjudged to pay the penalty of 1 per cent, a month. They contend that, if they are to be adjudged to pay such penalty, it should be estimated only on the amount the legality of which was disputed, and not on the amount which was tendered and not accepted. They say that section 11459, Rev. Stat. 1909, requires the collector to receive and receipt for the taxes which may be tendered on any part of a tract of land. That section does not apply to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Hughes v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
... ... St. Louis-San Francisco Ry ... Co., 300 S.W. 274, 318 Mo. 285; Kansas City, Ft ... Scott and Memphis R.R. Co. v. Thornton, 152 Mo. 570, 54 ... S.W. 445; Section ... Par. 1253, page 2491; State ex rel. Stone v. Kansas City, Ft ... Scott and Memphis Ry. Co. et al., 178 S.W. 444 ... ... ...
-
St. Francis Levee District of Missouri v. Dorroh
...Nat. Bank v. Woester, 176 Mo. 62; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Indiana, 165 U.S. 304; Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 260 U.S. 647; State ex rel. v. Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 444. (4) amount of penalty to be assessed against a delinquent taxpayer is discretionary with the Legislature. 37 Cyc. 1542; W. U. Tel. ......
-
State ex rel. Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v. City of St. Louis
... ... from the lien thereof. Revised Code of St. Louis 1926, sec ... 1032, p. 146; State ex rel. Stone v. Kansas City, etc., ... Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 444. (6) Until the amount of the tax ... was determined beyond further question or dispute, there was ... ...
-
State ex rel. Sedalia Water Co. v. Harnsberger
...1919. The above section applies only to land, and does not give the taxpayer the right to pay a part of his personal tax. State ex rel. v. Railroad Co., 178 S.W. 444; 13 J. 545; 1 C. J. 558; Knapp v. Pepsin Syrup Co., 137 Mo.App. 472; Adams Express Co. v. Black, 62 Ind. 128. Under the statu......