State v. Hamilton

Decision Date19 March 1907
Citation202 Mo. 377,100 S.W. 609
PartiesSTATE ex rel. BROWN, Collector, v. HAMILTON.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; H. W. Johnson, Judge.

Action by the state, on the relation of one Brown, as collector of taxes, against George A. Hamilton, as curator of the estate of Charles M. Hamilton, a minor. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This case is brought to this court by appeal on the part of the plaintiff from a judgment of the Lincoln county circuit court in a suit by the collector of Lincoln county, Mo., against George A. Hamilton, for the taxes due from the estate of his ward, Charles M. Hamilton, a minor, for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899. We deem it unnecessary to burden this statement by reproducing the petition in the cause. There were three suits for taxes, one for each of the years as heretofore indicated, and by order of the court they were consolidated. The cause was submitted to the court upon the evidence introduced, and the court made the following finding of facts: "That the last surviving parent of the minor died on the day prior 1888, and at the time was a resident of District No. 4, township 49, range 1 W., Lincoln county, Mo.; that Geo. A. Hamilton, defendant, was appointed curator of the estate of said minor; that said Hamilton's residence was at the time of his appointment and is now in District No. 2, township 49, range 1 E., in said county; that immediately after the death of said last surviving parent of said minor, then only nine years old, he went to live with his aunt in District No. 6, township 50, range 1 W., and continued to live with her under her parental control and direction until he attained his majority; that said minor was enrolled in said district as a child therein and enjoyed all the rights and privileges therein as other enrolled children; that the school board of District 4, township 49, range 1 W., returned the said minor as a taxpayer resident therein; that the estate of said minor was duly assessed by the assessor of Lincoln county, Mo., but the taxes levied therein were assigned to District No. 4, township 49, range 1 W., by the clerk, and so charged on the collector's books; that defendant tendered all state and county taxes to the collector, but the same was refused by said collector, for the reason that the school tax was not included therein; that the residence of said minor from the death of his said last surviving parent was with his aunt in District No. 6, township 50, range 1 W., in said county; that the taxes should have been assigned and set apart to said District No. 6, township 50, range 1 W. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant pay the state and county taxes without penalty; that defendant pay the school taxes according to the current rate in District No. 6, township 50, range 1 W., and that the said taxes be transferred to said District No. 6, township 50, range 1 W., and that defendant pay the costs of this finding" —and afterwards, on the same day and date, entered the following judgment, to wit: "Now comes the parties to the above cause and submit the matters in the issue herein to the court upon the evidence introduced and an agreed statement of facts filed herein, and the court, being fully advised of and concerning the premises, finds that the state and county taxes sued on as shown by the three tax bills in said consolidated suit aggregate the sum of $615.58, without interest and penalties, for the years 1898, 1899, and 1900, and that the school taxes for the same years aggregate the sum of $543.20 without interest and penalties; that prior to the 1st day of January following the year, after said state and county taxes became due and payable, the defendant tendered and offered to pay the full amount of said state and county taxes to the collector of Lincoln county, and that said collector refused to accept the same unless the defendant also paid in full said school taxes, and that defendant has ever since been ready and willing to pay said state and county taxes, and tenders same into court, and the court further finds that said school taxes so sued for in said tax bills were assessed and extended upon the tax books for the years of 1898, 1899, and 1900 upon estimates and reports made by School District No. 4, township 49, range 1 W., in Lincoln county, Mo., and that at the time the assessment of said taxes for said years the defendant was curator of the estate of said Charles M. Hamilton, a minor, and had and controlled the assets and estate of said minor, and resided in, and gave the lists of said property of said minor to the assessor at his house in School District No. 2, township 49, range 1 E., in Lincoln couny, Mo. The court further finds that at the death of the parents of said Charles M. Hamilton, who was then nine years old, went to live with his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • School Dist. of Springfield R-12, ex rel. Midland Paving Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 1982
    ...the amount of recovery. Laclede Land & Improvement Co. v. Schneider, 177 S.W. 388, 390(6) (Mo.1915); State ex rel. Brown v. Hamilton, 202 Mo. 377, 386, 100 S.W. 609, 611 (1907). So, we consider first the contention of both defendants that the trial court erred in applying Jackson's payments......
  • Northern v. McCaw
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 1915
    ... ... Green v. Beckwith, 38 Mo ... 384; Humphreys v. Humphreys, 115 Mo.App. 361; ... Wyrick v. Wyrick, 162 Mo.App. 736; 14 Cyc. 833; ... State ex rel. v. Banta, supra; Ramey v. Dayton, 77 ... Mo. 678. (2) A matter of intention. State ex rel. v ... Smith, 64 Mo.App. 313; Shirk v. Shirk, 75 ... assessed in the Hirshe School District falls short of fixing ... plaintiff's domicile in that district. [State ex rel ... Brown v. Hamilton, 202 Mo. 377, 100 S.W. 609.] It is ... established, we think, that he abandoned his Springfield home ... and began to be a bona-fide resident of ... ...
  • Milliken v. Thyson Commission Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1907
    ... ... in price, which is stated, aggregating the sum of $ ... 122,275.00. The petition does not state the dates of the ... several purchases nor the names of the persons from whom the ... purchases were made ...          In ... order to ... ...
  • The State ex rel. Brown v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1907
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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