State v. Hall

Decision Date05 June 1924
Docket NumberNo. 24073.,24073.
Citation304 Mo. 83,262 S.W. 720
PartiesSTATE ex rel. MT. PLEASANT TP. v. HALL et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, at the relation of Mount Pleasant Township, Bates County, against J. W. Hall and others, as Clerk and Judges of Bates County Court. From a judgment of dismissal, relator appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Silvers & Silvers, of Butler, for appellant.

De Armond & Maxey and D. C. Chastain, all of Butler, for respondents.

Statement.

RAILEY, C.

The purpose of this action was to compel defendants, as clerk and judges of the Bates county court, by mandamus, to extend a special road and bridge tax levied by the township board of relator —said county being under township organization—against property within the limits of five special road districts which were organized under article 13 of chapter 98, Revised Statutes 1919. The levy above mentioned was for the taxes of 1921. The commissioners of the five special road districts had made road and bridge levies for their respective districts, and the respondents, while extending all other taxes certified by the township board, declined to levy or extend the special road levy made by the township board against property in the special road districts. Upon the filing of respondents' return, the case was tried by the court on an agreed statement of facts. It was held by the court, in legal effect, that inasmuch as all control of the roads and bridges in a special road district is withdrawn from the township board, upon the organization of a special road district, the Legislature intended that the township board should have road fund taxing power only, coextensive with its territorial limits for road purposes. The trial court dismissed the mandamus proceeding, and entered a regular judgment of dismissal in favor of respondents. Upon relator's motion for a new trial being overruled, it appealed the cause to this court.

Opinion.

I. On April 14, 1924, counsel for respondents filed in this court a verified motion, alleging therein that the terms of J. W. Hall, clerk of Bates county, Mo., and of said R. F. Harper, G. T. Wolfe, and F. A. Strickland, as judges of the county court of said county, have expired, and that none of these respondents hold said offices, or either of them; that since January 1, 1923, C. W. Ray has been the duly elected, qualified, and acting clerk of said county court; and since said date T. D. Embree, Frank Fix, and W. P. Black have been the duly elected, qualified, and acting judges of the county court aforesaid. Respondents assert that they have no further interest in the subject-matter of this controversy, and would be powerless to comply with the order of the court, should a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued against them. Having gone out of office, they ask that the action be abated as to them. A. copy of the above motion was served on counsel for relator on April 12, 1924, and no suggestions have been filed in opposition to said motion. We will determine, in the succeeding proposition, what disposition should be made of said motion.

II. Since the trial of this case in the court below, division No. 1 decided the case of State ex rel. Monett Special Road District v. Barry County et al., reported in 258 S. W. at page 710 and following; and this division delivered an opinion in State ex rel. Erwin v. Holman et al., reported in 256 S. W. page 776 and following. We express no opinion as to whether said cases, or either of them, have any bearing on the question as to whether Mt. Pleasant township had the legal right to maintain an action of this character under the circumstances presented in the record before us, but have simply referred to these cases in passing, so that the parties in interest might have their attention called thereto, should similar action be contemplated by said township against the present clerk and judges of the Bates county court.

It is evident from the undisputed facts in this case that, if it should be reversed and remanded, the relator could proceed no...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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