State v. Center Creek Mining Co.

• Citation: 262 Mo. 490,171 S.W. 356
• Decision Date: 02 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 16758.,16758.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BLAIR, City Collector, v. CENTER CREEK MINING CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

171 S.W. 356

262 Mo. 490

STATE ex rel. BLAIR, City Collector, v. CENTER CREEK MINING CO.

No. 16758.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 2, 1914.

1. JUDGMENT (§ 702) — CONCLUSIVENESS — ACTIONS BY THE STATE FOR TAXES.

The ordinary rules of res judicata and estoppel by judgment apply to actions by the state for the collection of taxes.

2. JUDGMENT (§ 713) — CONCLUSIVENESS — MATTERS CONCLUDED.

While a matter once adjudicated is forever concluded when it arises under the same circumstances between the parties or their privies, and the estoppel of a judgment applies, not only to everything urged in support of or interposed in defense to the cause of action, but also to all which might have been put forward, yet, where there is a second action between the same parties upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only to those matters in issue or points controverted upon the determination of which judgment was rendered.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 18) — INCORPORATION — ORDER OF COUNTY COURT — "JUDICIAL ACT."

The act of the county court, in incorporating a town in accordance with Laws 1871, p. 85, is a judicial act.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 18) — INCORPORATION — COLLATERAL ATTACK.

The judgment of the county court incorporating a municipality in accordance with Laws 1871, p. 85, cannot be collaterally attacked, but can be questioned only by a proceeding in quo warranto.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 18) — ATTACK ON INCORPORATION — PLEADING — SUFFICIENCY.

To assail an order of the county court incorporating a city or town, all essential infirmities resulting from the order must be alleged and proven with the same strictness required in a bill in equity to amend the final judgment of the court of record on the ground of fraud or collusion; hence the validity of such a judgment of incorporation must be raised by express pleading.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 33) — BOUNDARIES — EXTENT OF.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5257, provides that, where it is desired to incorporate a town in its respective class, an ordinance shall be passed submitting that question to the voters, etc. Section 5895 provides that the jurisdiction of any city organized in such manner shall not be affected, but the limits shall remain after such organization the same as they were previously. Held that, while a municipality, by its incorporation, has the power to enlarge or restrict its boundaries by ordinance, a city incorporated by order of the county court may not, upon incorporating under the statute, change its boundaries by the incorporation ordinance.

7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 28) — EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES.

As the right of a municipality to extend its boundaries gives to one of the interested parties legislative power, the reasonableness of such an ordinance is a subject of judicial inquiry.

8. JUDGMENT (§ 713) — CONCLUSIVENESS — MATTERS CONCLUDED.

In an action where the validity of city taxes upon defendant's property was in question, the taxes were held invalid upon the theory that the incorporation ordinance by which the city became a city of the fourth class was unreasonable in its inclusion of defendant's property. The city had been previously incorporated by order of the county court, and such order included defendant's property within its boundaries. Held, that, since the action did not question the validity of the order of the county court, the judgment was not conclusive, in a subsequent suit for other taxes, upon the question whether defendant's property was properly located in the city.

9. TAXATION (§ 431) — ASSESSMENTS.

While certification of a city assessment by the county clerk, who, as secretary of the county board of equalization, is its certifying officer, is sufficient authentication of the assessment, the corrected land list of the county assessor, kept in accordance with Rev. St. 1909, §§ 11372, 11397, is the original record, and the city assessment must yield to it.

10. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 971) — CITY TAXES — ASSESSMENT.

Under Const. art. 10, § 11, declaring that the valuation of property for city taxation shall not exceed the valuation of the same property for state and county purposes, and Rev. St. 1909, § 9347, providing that in cities of the fourth class the city assessor shall, jointly with the county assessor, assess all property, and such assessment shall, after it has been passed on by the board of equalization, be taken as a basis from which the aldermen shall make the levy for city purposes, an assessment for taxes by a city of the fourth class at a valuation greatly in excess of the valuation for county purposes cannot stand.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; D. E. Blair, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of F. P. Blair, City Collector, against the Center Creek Mining Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

The plaintiff sues for taxes charged by the city of Carterville, in Jasper county, a city of the fourth class, on the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 17 in township 28 of range 32 in said county, and alleged to be in said city, as shown by the following tabulated statement:

                ==============================================================================================================================
                Years for Which     Valuation.    Gen'l Fund.    Special.    Sewer.    Waterworks.    Total Taxes.    Pn'y from Jan.    Total
                  Taxes are Due.                                                                                     1st & Col's Fees
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     1905              2000         10             5 00                                  15              8 55            23 55
                     1906             80000        400           200                                    600            270              870
                     1907             80000        400                        257           200         856            282 48          1138 48
                     1908             25000        125            62 50        80                       267 50          56 17           323 67
                     1909             22500        112            56 25        72                       239 75          27 58           267 33
                                                                                                                                       ________
                                                                                                                                       2623 03
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

The answer, after a general denial, pleaded facts relating to the situation and condition of the land tending to show that it ought not to be subjected to urban burdens, and stated:

"That the pretended ordinance purporting to extend the corporate limits of said city so as to include the defendant's land was and is unreasonable, unjust, and oppressive, * * * and that any and all acts whatever purporting or undertaking to include the said land within the corporate limits of said city of Carterville were and are unreasonable and void."

It further pleaded that the same issue was adjudicated in a suit for taxes for previous years, in the Jasper county circuit court, wherein the state, at the relation of one Al. Pease, collector of said city, was the plaintiff, and this defendant was the defendant, in which there was a judgment upon the same issue for the defendant.

The plaintiff introduced his tax bill, corresponding with the foregoing tabulated statement, and an entry from the records of the Jasper county court, as of April 16, 1877, as follows:

"In the Matter of Incorporation of Carterville:

"Whereas, more than two-thirds of the inhabitants of the territory hereinafter named have petitioned the court, setting forth the metes and bounds of their village commons as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of section No. Seventeen (17), township twenty-eight (28), range thirty-two (32), running thence west three-fourths of one mile, thence south one mile, thence east three-fourths of one mile, thence one mile north to place of beginning. The platted town of Carterville being situated within the described bounds, and praying that the territory as above described may be incorporated under the name and style of the town of Carterville and a board of trustees appointed for the preservation and regulation of any commons appertaining to said town. And having asked that for the first trustees of said town that W. A. Daugherty, J. Alexander Wilson, A. N. McReynolds, J. O. Rose, and Joseph W. Manlove be appointed. It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the prayer of the petitioners is reasonable. It is ordered by the court that the territory above described be and the same is hereby incorporated under the name and style of the town of Carterville and W. A. Daugherty, J. Alexander Wilson, A. N. McReynolds, J. O. Rose, and Joseph Manlove be and are hereby appointed trustees of said town."

The defendant introduced the "Land Tax Book" of the county for taxes of 1906 and 1907 and the "Land List" of the assessment for the same taxes. The valuation for each of those years, as shown on these books, is as follows: 1906, total valuation by assessor, $2,000; total valuation as adjusted by the board of equalization, $6,000; 1907, total valuation by assessor, $12,000; total valuation as adjusted by the board of equalization, $15,000. The state and county taxes were charged on those valuations. The tax books of Carterville for the same years were in evidence, and showed a valuation upon this land for each of said years of $80,000. A certificate was attached to the city tax book for 1906, the body of which is as follows:

"I, Lon L. Ashcraft, clerk of the county court and...