State ex rel. Wellworth Realty Company v. Koeln
| Decision Date | 17 February 1914 |
| Citation | 164 S.W. 220,255 Mo. 301 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. WELLWORTH REALTY COMPANY and BERTHOLD INVESTMENT COMPANY v. EDMOND KOELN, Collector, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Moses N. Sale Judge.
Affirmed.
Edward W. Foristel and Frank H. Haskins for appellant.
(1) Where a lot is assessed as an entirety, the collector can not be compelled to receive taxes on a part of that lot. (2) Even if the statute could be so construed, it does not require him to mark that part paid; to release that part from the lien of the taxes, or to give a receipt specifying value of the property, etc. Constitution, art. 10, sec. 4; R.S. 1909, sec 11459.
William F. Woerner for respondents.
The statute is intended to afford the remedy in exactly such a case as is here presented. Prior to its enactment the only statute upon the books requiring the collector to give a receipt for taxes was as follows: "When a collector shall receive taxes on lands, he shall designate in his receipt for same the particular tracts on which the taxes are paid, naming the range, township, section, quarter section or quarter quarter section, as the case may require, or, if paid on town lots, then he shall designate the lots on which the taxes are paid, giving the number of the lots, the square or block, and the street or alley on which they are situate." Without a statute permitting a payment on a designated part, a taxpayer could not tender a portion of the tax and demand a receipt therefor, as the law ordinarily intends that taxes shall be paid in full at one time. 37 Cyc. 1164. Consequently the Legislature enacted this statute, expressly authorizing the payment of the tax on designated parts of a larger tract, so as to cover instances where one's title to the balance of a piece, parcel or lot had failed, or where he never owned it (as here is the case with the Wellworth Realty Company), recognizing the theory that a land tax always runs with the land itself independently of a personal obligation. Sec. 11499, R.S. 1909; Neenan v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 89; State ex rel. v. Sergeant, 76 Mo. 557; Charley v. Kelley, 120 Mo. 134; St. Louis v. Contracting Co., 202 Mo. 451; State ex rel. v. Snyder, 139 Mo. 549; Pleadwell v. Glass Co., 151 Mo.App. 65. The statute must be construed as a whole and so as to produce a reasonable and just result. State ex rel. v. Railroad, 215 Mo. 492; Strodtman v. Railroad, 228 Mo. 154; State ex rel. v. Ryan, 232 Mo. 77.
Proceeding by mandamus; defendant moves to quash the alternative writ. The motion was overruled, and defendant electing to stand on his overruled motion as on an overruled demurrer, refused to make further return or to plead, and the judgment issuing the peremptory writ followed from which he has appealed. On June 1, 1908, the relator, Berthold Investment Company, was the owner of a strip of land extending from Compton avenue westward about three-fourths of a mile to Grand avenue. It was about three hundred and fifty feet wide, was intersected by three streets, thus throwing portions of it in four different city blocks. A suit was then pending to condemn the north part of that property for an extension of Kingshighway a hundred and seventy feet wide and the full length of the property. A judgment of condemnation was entered January 5, 1909, in that suit. On January 21, 1910, the said investment company conveyed the portion of land not taken for the street to relator, Wellworth Realty Company. On April 28, 1910, the relators tendered to the defendant five hundred and ten dollars, the full amount of all taxes, interest, penalties and costs for the taxes for the year 1909 on that part of the land not condemned for the street, computing the amount due by taking such proportion of the whole tax, interest, penalties and costs as the uncondemned land...
To continue reading
Request your trial