State ex rel. v. Broeker, 20496.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtBennick
Citation11 S.W.2d 81
PartiesTHE STATE OF MISSOURI, AT THE INFORMATION OF WM. F. BLOEBAUM, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, RELATOR, v. HENRY BROEKER, RESPONDENT.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
Docket NumberNo. 20496.,20496.
Decision Date06 November 1928
11 S.W.2d 81
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AT THE INFORMATION OF WM. F. BLOEBAUM, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, RELATOR,
v.
HENRY BROEKER, RESPONDENT.*
No. 20496.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
Opinion filed November 6, 1928.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County. — Hon. Emil Roehrig, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Wm. F. Bloebaum, Prosecuting Attorney of St. Charles County, Missouri, Wm. F. Achelpohl and Wm. Waye, Jr., for appellant.

(1) The city of St. Charles, Missouri, a city of the third class, had a legal right to impose an occupation license tax on painting and paper-hanger contractors. And ordinance No. 881, of said city, imposing an occupation license tax on respondent as a painting and paper-hanger contractor was legally imposed. Section 8322, R.S. 1919. (2) The occupation license taxes imposed upon the various occupations in the city of St. Charles, including that imposed upon respondent as a painter and paper-hanger contractor, by the provisions of ordinance No. 881, are paid into the general revenue fund of said city and said tax is a revenue measure and said occupation license taxes are taxes within the meaning of section 8230 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919. Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo. App. 35; City of St. Charles ex rel. Palmer v. Schulte, 305 Mo. 124; Viquesney v. City of Kansas City et al., 305 Mo. 488; American Manufacturing Co. v. City of St. Louis, 270 Mo. 40; State v. Freehold Investment Co., 305 Mo. 88; State ex rel. Dike v. Kingsbury, 105 Mo. App. 22; In re Zook's Estate, 296 S.W. 778; 37 C.J., p. 168, sec. 3; 37 C.J., p. 169, sec. 6; 3 C.J., p. 232; Louisiana Citizens Bank v. Parker, 192 U.S. 73. (3) The lower court in its decision and opinion failed to draw a distinction between a license fee imposed purely as a police regulation and one imposed for revenue only. Where the license fee is imposed purely as a police regulation under the police power it is not a tax within the meaning of the law, but where it is imposed purely for revenue under the power to raise revenue, it is a tax within the meaning of the law. And in this case the occupation tax is imposed as a revenue measure and is a tax. Authorities cited under point 2; State v. Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219; State ex rel. v. Hudson, 78 Mo. 302. (4) Even though respondent possessed all the qualifications prescribed by statute for the office of mayor of the city of St. Charles he was ineligible to be elected to said office because he was in arrears for certain unpaid city taxes at the time of his election and he cannot hold the office of mayor because of his failure to pay said taxes. Section 8230. Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919. (5) The Legislature has a right to fix the eligibility for public office and they have a right to say, as they did say in section 8230, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919, that no person shall be elected or appointed to any office who shall at the time be in arrears for any unpaid city taxes. State ex rel. Thomas v. Williams, 99 Mo. 291: State ex rel. Snyder v. Neurman, 91 Mo. 445; State ex rel. Weed v. Meek, 129 Mo. 431; State ex inf. v. Page, 140 Mo. 501. (6) The lower court erred in holding that when section 8230 (the disqualifying statute was passed) occupation taxes were unknown to cities of the third class. The facts are that both section 8230 (the disqualifying statute) and section 8322 (the statute authorizing the licensing and taxing of occupations) were passed at the same time as a part of the same bill by the same Legislature. Section 8230 was section 25 of that bill and section 8322 was section 107 of said bill. Session Laws of 1893, page 65 and following.

Osmund Haenssler, Theodore C. Bruere, Hensley, Allen & Marsalek and William H. Allen for respondent.

(1) The object of all rational construction of statutory enactment is to seek out and effectuate the purpose and intent of the Legislature in enacting the same. This is the great cardinal rule to which all others are incidental and subordinate. De Hart v. School District No. 39, 214 Mo. App. 651; Consolidated School District v. Hackman, 302 Mo. 558; Grier v. Railway, 286 Mo. 523; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 315 Mo. 485; State ex rel. Tadlock v. Moneyham, 212 Mo. App. 573; Grimes v. Reynolds, 94 Mo. App. 576. (2) The word "taxes," used in section 8230, Revised Statutes 1919, being a common word, is, by the command of our statute as well as the decisions of our courts, to be taken in its "plain or ordinary and usual sense." Sec. 7058, R.S. 1919; Grier v. Railway, 286 Mo. 523; Clark v. Railroad, 219 Mo. 524; Betz v. Railway Co., 314 Mo. 390; State ex rel. Clayton v. Bland, 301 Mo. 131; State ex rel. Koeln v. Y.M.C.A., 259 Mo. 233; 36 Cyc. 1114. (3) In construing section 8230, Revised Statutes 1919, providing that "no person shall be elected or appointed to any office who shall at the time (he) be in arrears for unpaid city taxes," the word "taxes," when taken in its plain, usual and ordinary acception, as it must be regarded as having been used in the statute, means ordinary, direct property taxes, levied upon real and personal property by a municipality, and does not include a mere license fee or "license tax" imposed by the municipality for the privilege of carrying on a business therein. Trenton v. Humel, 134 Mo. App. 595; State ex inf. Sutton v. Fasse, 189 Mo. 532; State ex inf. Barrett v. Clements, 305 Mo. 297; Castilo v. State Highway Commission, 312 Mo. 244; 37 Cyc. p. 711, Subdiv. C; 3 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, p. 2207, sec. 992; 17 R.C.L. 474, 475. (4) While a license fee imposed by a city may sometimes be regarded as a tax, in the generic and broad sense of that term there is, properly speaking, and as usually and generally understood, a clear distinction between such license charges and "taxes" in the ordinary sense of that term. 37 Cyc, p. 711, Subdiv. C; 3 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, p. 2207, sec. 992; 17 R.C.L. 474, 475; Trenton v. Humel, 134 Mo. App. 595; City of Savannah v. Cooper, 131 Ga. 670; Distilling Co. v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill. 19; Conklin Lumber Co. v. Chicago, 127 Ill. App. 103. (5) In construing a statute the legislative intent is to be determined from a general view of the whole act with reference to the subject-matter to which it applies and the particular topic under which the language in question is found. 36 Cyc 1128; Consolidated School District v. Hackman, 302 Mo. 558. (6)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Leggett v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1960
    ...that the distinctions between fees and taxes have been disregarded, both in the decisions and the statutes, State ex rel. Bloebaum v. Broeker, 222 Mo.App. 831, 11 S.W.2d 81; and that regulatory fees have been regarded as taxes, in a broad sense, in various connections. 53 C.J.S. Licenses § ......
  • City of Bolivar v. Ozark Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 5, 1945
    ...... its streets. Sec. 7197, R. S. Mo., 1939; State ex inf. v. Telephone Co., 337 Mo. 642, 85 S.W.2d 613. The courts have. recognized the right of ... the ordinance and would pay the charge. State ex rel. Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co., 321 Mo. 337, 53 S.W.2d. 394. . . ... Joslyn (Mo. Sup., 1933), 58 S.W.2d 289; Bloebaum v. Broeker, (Mo. App., 1928), 11 S.W.2d 81; Kansas City. v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, ......
  • State on inf. of Bloebaum v. Broeker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 6, 1928
    ...... No. 881, are paid into the general revenue fund of said city. and said tax is a revenue measure and said occupation license. taxes are taxes within the meaning of section 8230 of the. Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919. Lamar v. Adams,. 90 Mo.App. 35; City of St. Charles ex rel. Palmer v. Schulte, 305 Mo. 124; Viquesney v. City of Kansas. City et al., 305 Mo. 488; American Manufacturing Co. v. City of St. Louis, 270 Mo. 40; State v. Freehold. Investment Co., 305 Mo. 88; State ex rel. Dike v. Kingsbury, 105 Mo.App. 22; In re Zook's. Estate, 296 S.W. 778; 37 C. J., p. ......
  • City of Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 17, 1963
    ...regulation. Section 94.110 does not delegate to the city the power to regulate savings and loan associations. State on Inf. Bloebaum v. Broeker, 222 Mo.App. 831, 11 S.W.2d 81(4). The state has reserved such power unto itself. The fee charged is simply an occupation tax for the purpose of ob......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT