State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. McCausland

• Decision Date: 06 February 1900
• Citation: 154 Mo. 185,55 S.W. 218
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ZIEGENHEIN, Collector, v. McCAUSLAND et al. (two cases).
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

55 S.W. 218

154 Mo. 185

STATE ex rel. ZIEGENHEIN, Collector, v. McCAUSLAND et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 6, 1900.

TAXATION — PERSONAL PROPERTY — JUDICIAL CONTROL — SITUS.

Where a widow, as curatrix of her minor children, entitled to the fund under the control of the probate court of the city of St. Louis, removed with her children to St. Louis county, and was a resident of such county at the time the city levied an assessment thereon, such assessment was invalid, under Rev. St. 1889, § 7508, declaring that all personal property in the county, other than that where the owner resides, shall be assessed in the county of the owner's residence.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Actions by the state, on relation and to the use of Henry Ziegenhein, St. Louis city tax collector, against Mary McCausland, individually and as curatrix of her two minor children, Mary and Robert K. McCausland, to recover delinquent taxes. From a judgment in favor of relator, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Wm. B. Thompson and Ford W. Thompson, for appellants. E. C. Slevin, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

By stipulation between the parties, these two cases are submitted together. They are for personal back taxes for the year 1891, assessed against the defendants. Mary McCausland and Robert K. McCausland, who were then minors, and their curatrix. The cases were tried before the court, a jury being waived. Plaintiff recovered judgment in both cases, from which defendants appeal.

Briefly stated, the facts are that, prior and up to February, 1888, the defendants Mary and Robert K. McCausland resided with their mother and father in the city of St. Louis. The father and husband died in that city during that month, immediately after which occurrence Mrs. McCausland, together with her two children, Mary and Robert K., moved to St. Louis county, and were residing there on June 1, 1889, and have resided there ever since that time. The assessment was made by a deputy assessor, whose business it was to look after the assessment of property and money for taxes against estates and in the hands of guardians and curators. He testified that about the 1st of October of every year he went to the assessor's office, and would look at the entry of estates and settlements after the time had gone by, and whatever balance he found then he would take, and send notice to the various people, and, if no responses were made, he entered up the assessment against them; and that he pursued the same course in these cases, and reported the valuation of the amount fixed in the tax bills against the minors and curatrix. The assessor was notified of the removal of the defendants from the city before the assessments in these cases were made. It was admitted on the trial that, at the time of the assessments upon which the taxes were levied which are sued for, Mary McCausland was the curatrix of the minors, Mary McCausland and Robert K. McCausland. She was so appointed by the probate court of the city of St. Louis. The defendants asked the court to declare the law to be as follows: "(1) The court is asked to declare the law to be that, upon the pleadings and evidence in this case, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover." "(2) The court is asked to declare the law to be that if it finds from the evidence in this case that the defendants were not residents of the city of St. Louis, but were residents of the county of St. Louis, at the time the assessment of...