State v. Brown
Decision Date | 24 February 1903 |
Citation | 172 Mo. 374,72 S.W. 640 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HAMILTON v. BROWN, Collector of Revenue. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lincoln county; E. M. Hughes, Judge.
Mandamus by the state, on the relation of George A. Hamilton, against Frank D. Brown, as collector of revenue, to compel respondent to accept a tax for a certain district. From a judgment denying the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Martin & Woolfolk, for appellant. Geo. T. Dunn and Norton, Avery & Young, for respondent.
On the 9th day of December, 1898, the appellant presented his petition to the judge in chambers, and alternative writ of mandamus was issued. The petition was, in substance, as follows: Geo. A. Hamilton alleges that he was the curator of Chas. M. Hamilton, and that he (the curator) was a resident of School District No. 2, township 49, range 1 east; that he was appointed curator in 1888, and had charge of all the minor's personal property; that the same was in notes, moneys, bonds, and he (the curator) at all times kept these securities at his residence in said District No. 2, and before the year 1897 the property had always been assessed and taxes paid in School District No. 2; that in 1897 the assessor assessed the same and located it in said District No. 2, but that the county clerk, in making up the school tax book, extended it in School District No. 4, township 49, range 1 west, and delivered the same to the collector, and that the collector was then threatening to collect the taxes as shown by said school tax book as per estimate of said School District No. 4; that the rate of taxes in said District No. 2 is 40 cents, and in said District No. 4 is 100 cents, on the $100; that the collector is in legal possession of said school tax book so erroneously made by the said county clerk, and is attempting to collect the taxes as extended by the clerk, and, if he is not prevented, he will collect the same, and pay it in the county treasury to the credit of said District No. 4. A tender is then pleaded of all the taxes shown by said tax bill except the school tax, and a tender of 40 cents on the $100 school tax. The prayer of the petition is for a writ of mandamus against said collector commanding him to accept and receive the amount so tendered according to the estimate furnished by District No. 2, and that, when so paid, the respondent be required to pay the school tax so collected into the treasury to the credit of School District No. 2. The alternative writ was issued, and the respondent first filed a demurrer on the grounds that the statement in the petition did not warrant the relief prayed for. This was overruled, and the respondent at the time excepted. Respondent then filed his answer, which was as follows, in substance: Your respondent, for reason why he should not obey the commands of the said alternative writ, states that he is collector of Lincoln county, Mo., and that Geo. A. Hamilton is curator of the estate of Chas. M. Hamilton, a minor; that the school tax book under authority of which he is demanding and collecting these taxes was duly certified to him by the clerk of the county court of Lincoln county, Mo., and received by him; that the same charges the said Chas. M. Hamilton with the school tax as assessed in School District No. 4, township 49, range 1 west, at the rate of 100 cents on the $100; and that this respondent has no authority to alter, or in any way change, the said school tax book, and it is his duty as collector to collect the taxes as assessed therein. The respondent further says that this court has no jurisdiction by writ of mandamus to compel him to change, or in any wise alter, the assessment as certified to by the said county clerk, and, if there is any error in the assessment, that the county clerk alone, under authority of the county court, or by proceedings brought against him, has authority to hear and alter such erroneous assessment, and that this court has no jurisdiction in this action. It is further alleged that the petition or alternative writ does not show that the minor, Chas. M. Hamilton, at the time the writ was sued out or at any time theretofore, was a resident of School District No. 2. He alleges that at the time the assessment was made he was a resident of District No. 4. Denies that the money should be paid to District No. 2, and denies all and every other allegation in the petition or alternative writ not specially admitted.
Upon an examination of the record, we find the facts, as stated by the trial judge in his written opinion, substantially correct. At least, the difference as to the facts as stated by relator and the trial judge have no material bearing upon the legal questions involved in this controversy. Hence we adopt the statement of the trial judge as to the facts: Upon a full hearing of the application for writ of mandamus in this cause to compel the collector to receive the taxes according to the rate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Bluford v. Canada, 37449.
...ex rel. Kent v. Olenhouse, 324 Mo. 49, 23 S.W. (2d) 82; State ex rel. Nick v. Edwards, 260 S.W. 454; State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brown, 172 Mo. 374, 72 S.W. 640; State ex rel. Blue v. Waldo, 222 Mo. App. 396, 5 S.W. (2d) 653; State ex rel. Hemmerla v. Newburg Special Road Dist., 217 S.W. 605;......
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Hughes v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
...undisputed taxes does not relieve appellant from interest and penalties on said tendered taxes. Section 11084, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brown, 172 Mo. 374; State ex rel. Stone v. Kansas City Ft. S. & M. Co., 178 S.W. 444; State ex rel. Covington v. Wabash, 3 S.W.2d 378. Bradley,......
-
State ex rel. Bluford v. Canada
... ... authorized and required to do, namely, to furnish higher ... education to negro residents of this State. State ex rel ... Kent v. Olenhouse, 324 Mo. 49, 23 S.W.2d 82; State ... ex rel. Nick v. Edwards, 260 S.W. 454; State ex rel ... Hamilton v. Brown, 172 Mo. 374, 72 S.W. 640; State ... ex rel. Blue v. Waldo, 222 Mo.App. 396, 5 S.W.2d 653; ... State ex rel. Hemmerla v. Newburg Special Road ... Dist., 217 S.W. 605; State ex rel. Laclede Gas Light ... Co. v. Murphy, 170 U.S. 78; State ex rel. Onion v ... Supreme Temple Pythian ... ...
-
State ex rel. School Dist. No. 24 of St. Louis County v. Neaf
... ... never acquired jurisdiction as provided by law, and mandamus ... should not be employed to require these respondents to do ... something they have no legal right to do. Secs. 9800, 9808, ... R. S. 1929; Laws 1933, p. 424; Hamilton v. Brown, 72 ... S.W. 640, 172 Mo. 374; State ex rel. v. Thornhill, ... 174 Mo.App. 469, 160 S.W. 558; State ex rel. v ... Becker, 9 S.W.2d 153. (b) Mandamus is a discretionary ... writ which should be denied relators in view of their failure ... to pursue available remedies before the Board of ... ...