State v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Citation: 75 Mo. 208
• Parties: THE STATE v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

75 Mo. 208

THE STATE

v.THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas.--HON. JOHN T. REDD, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

This was a suit brought by the city of Hannibal in the name of the State to recover city taxes assessed against the property of defendant within the city. Defendant by its answer set up among other things a contract made on the 3rd day of December, 1868, between itself and the city. This contract recited that a controversy had arisen between defendant and the city in regard to the right of the city to tax the property of defendant, and that defendant intended, if the city exercised such right, to remove its general office and machine shops from the city to some other point, whereby but little property of the company would be left within the city and the taxes that could be collected would be small, and that it would contribute materially to the prosperity of the city to retain the general office and machine shops, and proceeded as follows: “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and the further consideration of $700, to be paid annually, as hereinafter stated, by the Hannibal & Saint Joseph Railroad Company to the city of Hannibal, the city of Hannibal hereby foregoes and relinquishes all right and claim to tax the Hannibal & Saint Joseph Railroad Company and its property of every kind and description, so long as said railroad company shall keep and maintain its general office and machine shops within the limits of said city, and said railroad company hereby agrees and promises to pay into the treasury of said city the sum of $700 for the year 1869, within thirty days after the 1st day of January, 1869, and the like sum within the like period for every year thereafter, so long as it shall keep and maintain its general office and machine shops within the limits of said city as aforesaid. It is distinctly understood by the respective parties hereto, that the payment by the Hannibal & Saint Joseph Railroad Company of said sum of $700 in each and every year, as herein stipulated, is in full compromise and satisfaction of all taxes and assessments, of whatever nature or kind and whatever purpose, with which the said city has or shall hereafter have the right to assess the Hannibal & Saint Joseph Railroad Company and its property.”

The answer further stated that in pursuance of said agreement defendant had, from the time of the making of said agreement, kept and maintained its general office and machine shops within the limits of the said city of Hannibal, and had paid annually the said sum of $700 in lieu of the taxes the said city was entitled to levy against and collect from the defendant, up to the year 1876, which sum for the year 1876 was tendered to said city, but refused by it.

There was a demurrer to so much of the answer as set up this contract and the demurrer was sustained.

Geo. W. Easley for appellant.

B. F. McPherson for respondent.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

Whether that portion of defendant's answer which pleaded the contract of December 3rd, 1868, was open to the objection taken by demurrer, depends upon the power of the city of Hannibal to make such a contract.

There is nothing to be found in the charter of the city which gives countenance to the idea that such power was possessed at that time, and we know that unless by the charter, the organic law of the city, such power be granted, it has no existence. This proposition of law is general and undisputed. If the power be not granted in express words, necessarily implied, or incident to those expressly granted, or essential and indispensable to the declared objects of the corporation, then the corporation is not the possessor of such a power. Dillon on Munic. Corp., (3 Ed.) § 89, and cases cited.

There are other objections equally insuperable to the exercise of the power relied upon in the present case. For though municipal corporations may make such contracts as their respective charters authorize, they cannot so contract as to surrender or embarrass their legislative or governmental powers, or prevent the full and complete performance of their public duties; duties which result from such powers, which are conferred...