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

• Decision Date: 04 February 1889
• Citation: 97 Mo. 348,10 S.W. 436
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TILLERY, Collector, v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 436

97 Mo. 348

STATE ex rel. TILLERY, Collector, v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 4, 1889.

1. RAILROAD COMPANIES — TAXATION — ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES.

Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 6901, provides for the assessment of bridges of joint-stock companies and bridges for crossing which a toll is charged. Sections 6866, 6876, provide for the assessment of all property of railroad companies, the road and rolling stock to be assessed as a whole. Held, that a bridge forming part of a railroad must be assessed with the road, and not as a separate structure, though it is used also for the passage of carriages and foot-passengers, for which tolls are charged.

2. BRIDGES — ASSESSMENT BY STATE BOARD — RES ADJUDICATA.

Though the state board is empowered to assess toll-bridges, its determination that a bridge is a toll-bridge is not conclusive.

3. SAME — TOLL-BRIDGES — RAILROAD BRIDGES.

A railroad company, with power to bridge navigable streams, was also given the powers conferred on a certain bridge company, and permitted in connection with its railroad bridge, to erect a bridge for vehicles and foot-passengers, and to receive compensation therefor. Other railroad companies were given the right to use the bridge on terms to be agreed upon or fixed by the governor. Held, that a bridge thus built and used was a railroad bridge, and not a toll-bridge.

Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; JOHN P. STROTHER, Judge.

Suit by the state ex rel. Tillery, collector, etc., against the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company. Both parties appeal.

H. F. Simvall, James L. Sheetz, and D. C. Allen, for plaintiff. Strong & Mosman and Warner, Dean & Hagerman, for defendant.

BLACK, J.

For the tax year ending August, 1883, the state board of equalization assessed the defendant's bridge over the Missouri river at Kansas City as a toll-bridge, placing the valuation at $500,000. The bridge being in two counties, one-half of this valuation was certified down to Clay county, and on that the county court levied taxes for that year. This is a suit to enforce the payment of the taxes thus levied. The circuit court gave judgment for plaintiff, except for the item called "funded debt tax," and as to that found for the defendant. Both parties appealed.

The case was here before¹ on the plaintiff's appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition. While the petition states that the bridge is owned by the defendant, it also states that it is a toll-bridge, and does not disclose the fact that it is a part of the defendant's road. On this state of the pleadings we held, and could only have held, that the bridge was properly assessed as a separate structure. On return of the cause defendant denied the above allegation, and averred the fact to be that the bridge formed a part of the railroad itself, and on this allegation the plaintiff made an issue of fact. It is therefore plain that we have to deal with another and different question from that considered on the former appeal.

The Kansas City, Galveston & Lake Superior Railroad Company was created by the act of February 9, 1857, with power to build a railroad from Kansas City northward, and to bridge navigable streams. By authority of law, the name was changed to the Kansas City & Cameron Railroad Company, and the fourth section of the amendatory act of March 11, 1867, (Laws 1867, p. 143,) provides: "The said railroad company shall have the same authority, rights, and powers as are conferred upon the Kansas City Bridge Company, incorporated by an act of the general assembly of February 20, 1865, and may, in connection with its railroad bridge, erect a bridge for the passage of teams, carriages, and foot-passengers, and shall have the same right and authority to receive compensation therefor as are granted to the said Kansas City Bridge Company; and all railroad companies whose roads shall terminate at or near such bridge, on either side of the Missouri river, or which shall construct a branch road to such bridge, shall have the right to run their cars and engines on and over such bridge, at such times and on such terms as may be agreed on between the companies, respectively; and, if such companies shall not agree on such terms, then on such terms as shall be prescribed by the governor of this state." The bridge act provides, among other things, that "when said bridge is completed the said company shall be entitled to demand and receive tolls for crossing the same, and to fix the rates of toll, of which a schedule shall be kept conspicuously posted at each end of the bridge; which rates shall be as follows, and shall never exceed the same, to-wit: * * * And said bridge company may permit any railroad company to extend their railroad track over said bridge upon such terms as may be agreed upon by said bridge company and such railroad companies."

The Kansas City Bridge Company failed to build a bridge, but the Kansas City & Cameron Railroad Company constructed its road from Kansas City to Cameron, and in doing so, and under the authority of law before stated, built the bridge in question. Thereafter, and in 1870, that company and def...