State v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 19 March 1888
• Citation: 94 Mo. 544,7 S.W. 583
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CARTER, Collector, v. HAMILTON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 S.W. 583

94 Mo. 544

STATE ex rel. CARTER, Collector, v. HAMILTON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 19, 1888.

1. TAXATION — COLLECTION BY SUIT — WHO MAY BRING SUIT — CITY COLLECTOR.

Rev. St. Mo. §§ 6833-6837, 6845, provide for the delivery of back-tax books to the collectors of the various counties, and of cities having a population of over 5,000, and also for the collection thereof. Held, that the collector of the city of St. Joseph, a city of over 5,000 inhabitants, is the proper party to bring a suit for taxes levied by such city.

2. SAME — LEVY TO PAY JUDGMENT AGAINST CITY — PAYMENT BY CITY — SUIT TO COLLECT TAX.

Plaintiff, a municipal corporation, levied a tax to pay certain judgments which had been rendered against it. Defendant's property was included in the levy, but, before suit brought for such tax, the judgments had been paid by the city. Held, that defendant was not thereby exonerated from liability to pay the tax so levied.

Appeal from circuit court, Buchanan county; JOSEPH P. GRUBB, Judge.

Action by H. C. Carter, collector of tax for the city of St. Joseph, for unpaid taxes, against John L. Hamilton and Edward W. Hamilton. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Limbird & Huston, for appellant. Strong & Mosman, H. K. White, and Ramey & Brown, for respondents.

SHERWOOD, J.

This is an action for the collection of back taxes alleged to be due the city of St. Joseph. For the most part, the taxes sought to be collected were levied for the alleged purpose of satisfying certain judgments rendered against the city of St. Joseph, the levies being made to satisfy such judgments. The answer of the defendants was as follows: "Now come said defendants, and, for amended answer to the second amended petition herein, admit that they are now, and were at the time stated in the petition, owners of the real estate therein mentioned. They aver that they did, on February 8, 1881, pay to the city of St. Joseph the general administration tax alleged by plaintiff to be due for the year 1880 on lot one, in block (40) forty, of the original town of St. Joseph, Missouri. They aver that H. C. Carter, city collector of the city of St. Joseph, is not the proper person in whose behalf this suit should be maintained, but aver that it should be prosecuted in the name of Tandy Trice, who was, when this suit was commenced, and is now, collector of Buchanan county, Missouri. They aver that all of the alleged judgments mentioned in the petition were, long prior to the institution of this suit, fully paid. They aver that none of the taxes alleged to have been levied for water-fund taxes were levied to pay for expenses incurred by the city of St. Joseph, Missouri, for water-works erected and maintained by it, or for payment of principal and interest of bonds issued by the city of St. Joseph, Missouri, to pay for the erection and maintenance of water-works owned by the city of St. Joseph, Mo., or in which said city, as such, had any interest whatever. They deny each and every other allegation of the second amended petition not herein admitted. And they ask to be dismissed with costs." The reply of plaintiff was, in effect, a general denial. When the trial took place, the following admissions were made: "It was admitted by the defendants that the city of St. Joseph was and is a municipal corporation, as alleged in the petition; that it has had and now has, as stated in the petition, over five thousand inhabitants, and that it is organized, under the general law of the state, as a city of the second class, as alleged in the petition; and that Henry C. Carter, to whose use this suit is prosecuted, is and has been collector of said city of St. Joseph, as stated in the petition, and that his signature to the tax-bills attached to the petition are genuine. It was also admitted by the plaintiff that the general administration tax for the year 1880 was paid upon lot one (1) in block forty (40) by the defendants. It was also admitted that the taxes alleged to have been levied for water purposes were levied to pay liabilities incurred in favor of the St. Joseph Water Company, a corporation organized under the statutes of the state of Missouri, in which the city of St. Joseph had no interest as a stockholder; and that the said city of St. Joseph had not issued any bonds for the purpose of furnishing water-supply to the city of St. Joseph, and that the liability accrued under the ordinance found on page 357 of the Revised Ordinances of 1880. It was also admitted that the judgments mentioned in the petition were paid off prior to the commencement of this suit, partially by moneys collected under the levies alleged in the petition, and partially by funding bonds, or moneys received from the sale of renewal or funding bonds for the payment of interest, upon which levies are alleged to have been made. It was also admitted that Tandy Trice was, at the commencement of this suit, and is yet, the county collector of Buchanan county, Missouri." Thereupon the plaintiff offered in evidence a tax-bill attached to his petition in evidence, it being stipulated that the other tax-bills were in similar form. The tax-bill thus offered was as follows:

                                                                                      "BACK-TAX BILL.                                             (Ex. A.)
                "State of Missouri, County of Buchanan — ss.: I, Henry C. Carter, collector of the revenue within and for the city of
                St. Joseph, in the county of Buchanan, in the state of Missouri, do hereby certify that the following amounts of back taxes
                remain delinquent in favor of the several funds for the several years, and on the real estate lying and being in said city
                county, and state, set opposite thereto, to-wit
                ==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================
                                                                                        Y'r for Which                  General                                 Lighting                   Special Int.,                 Funding Tax
                            Name of Owner.                Lot.  Block.    Addition.     Taxes are Due.  Valuation.  Administrat'n  Special Taxes.  Judgments.   Streets  Sewers.  Water.    Ord. 516.    Sinking Fund.    Ord. 516.   Remarks
                                                                                                                      Purposes.                                with Gas.

...