State v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 01 March 1910
• Citation: State v. Harrison, 125 S.W. 1115, 226 Mo. 158 (Mo. 1910)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. and to Use of RICE v. HARRISON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

125 S.W. 1115

226 Mo. 158

STATE ex rel. and to Use of RICE v.HARRISON.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

March 1, 1910.

1. TAXATION (§ 482) — ASSESSMENT — ASSESSMENT BY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION — NOTICE TO OWNER — ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY — "ADD."

ActMarch 27, 1903(Laws 1903, p. 253 [Ann. St. 1906, § 9134-1]) § 1, gives the county board of equalization power to assess and equalize omitted property, on notice in writing to the owner of the time and place of hearing.Rev. St. 1899, § 9145(Ann. St.1906, p. 4212), provides that if any one is sick or absent when the assessor calls for a list of his property the assessor shall leave a notice, requiring the taxpayer to make a statement of his property, and if he neglects to deliver the statement the assessor shall make the assessment.Sections 9130-9133(Ann. St.1906, pp. 4205-4207) authorized the board of equalization to equalize assessments made by the assessor on lists furnished by the property owner;section 9132 requiring notice to the owner where the board raises the valuation given by him.Defendant did not furnish to the assessor a list of his property on the 1st day of June, and some time after October the assessor sent him a blank assessment list which he filled out by giving the value of his property and returned to the assessor, after which the county board of equalization assessed such property upon the valuation given by defendant.Held, construing the statutes together, that section 1 only required notice to the property owner when the board of equalization added other property to the assessor's books not placed thereon by him, and the board by assessing property on the valuation as given by defendant did not "add" such property within the statute so that notice to defendant of the assessment by it was not required.

2.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 284) — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY — ASSESSMENT WITHOUT NOTICE.

The assessment of the property by the board of equalization without giving defendant notice thereof was not a taking of property without due process of law.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.

Proceeding by the State, on Relation and to the Use of Charles W. Rice, Collector of Clinton County, against C. H. Harrison.From a judgment for defendant, relator appeals.Reversed and remanded for new trial.

The relator, as collector of revenue of Clinton county, instituted this suit in the circuit court of that county against the defendant, as curator of the estate of Walter, Virginia and Eunice de Steiguer, to recover back taxes due for state, county, and school purposes for the year 1905, aggregating $418.A trial was had before the court, which resulted in a judgment for the defendant; and the relator duly appealed the cause to this court.

The facts are brief and are practically undisputed.They are as follows: Defendant for some cause, not disclosed by the record, neglected to make out and deliver to the county assessor a personal assessment list, as required by law, of the personal property, money, and effects in his hands and under his control as the curator of said estates, on the 1st day of June, 1904.Some time after October of that year, the collector notified him of that fact, and inclosed to him one of the ordinary blank assessment lists, with a request that he fill out and return same to the assessor's office, at Plattsburg.On or about December 31, 1904, the defendant returned to the assessor, at Plattsburg, by mail, the assessment list before mentioned, wherein he placed the value of the property in his hands at the sum of $27,500.This list had been lost and could not be produced at the trial.He testified, however, that he did not place those figures in the column headed "money and notes," but simply made a statement upon the blank list, showing the balance which was charged against him as such curator of said estates on an accounting as of June 1, 1904.This, however, is positively denied by Mr. McWilliams, the county clerk, a witness for defendant, who entered the list in the taxbooks.He testified that the return list "shows exactly what the books show."This transaction is best explained in the language of Mr. McWilliams: Cross-examination by Mr. E. C. Hall: "Q.Mr. McWilliams, you were the clerk of the board of equalization at the time this record was made?A.Yes, sir; secretary of the board.Q.Do you know the facts upon which this record was made?A.Yes, sir.Q.State whether or not there was a list of the property — assessment list — made out by Mr. Harrison filed before the board at that time?A.There was.Q.Calling for the amount of $27,500?A.Yes, sir.Q.And that, among other lists, was a lot of lists made out by the individuals themselves and sent in too late?A.Sent in after the county assessor turned his books over, but before the board of equalization — Q. Tellthe court how that occurred, with regard to the curator or guardian?A.It occurred in this way, as it occurs every year: The county assessor turned his books over in October.After October, after the county assessor turned his books over, quite a number of lists were omitted from the book as the county court approved it.They gave notice, had some blank lists sent to the ones who omitted to give in their assessment between October and April.There was some thirty lists in that call.They were sent to the county assessor and he sent them to the county court and they were put on there by the county court in April.That was the way the lists were put on.Q.Have you made search for that list of Mr. Harrison?A.Well, while I was clerk, Mr. Harrison asked for the lists two or three times.I always gave him the lists called for, as well as I know.In January — I believe it was the first Monday or Tuesday in January — we looked for the list at that time and didn't find it.I don't know, it may be misplaced.I thought, maybe, the collector had it."It is admitted that the list cannot be produced at this time.By witness: "I expect maybe it is put in the wrong box down there.Q.That is all."

Redirect examination: "Q.This list you speak of, you don't pretend to know what it shows?A.Yes, sir; it shows exactly what the books show, because I entered it myself.It was signed by C. H. Harrison.Q.Give the wording of it?A.Well, I could not do it.It's the regular county assessment list sent in by Mr. Harrison with the valuation in that book.I am positive of that for the reason no list was placed on the book except the order these lists were on.Every list was signed that was there.There is no question of that.Q.Youdon't pretend to remember what that list stated, though?A.I pretend to say it stated that amount of money in the lists belong to the heirs — money and notes.Under the head of money and notes.Q.Money and notes?A.Yes, sir.Q.Yousay under the head of money and notes.This list you speak of had a column `money and notes'?A.Yes, sir; it was the usual county assessment list.Just what that recites in the record.Under the head of money and notes, `$27,500.00.'Q.That was the heading on the list?A.It is in the list under that head; yes, sir.Of course three or four or five items under that.Notes secured and notes unsecured — that is, mortgages secured and mortgages unsecured — but under the head of money and notes comes that amount.Q.Youdon't know when Mr. Harrison sent that list to the assessor?A.No, sir; I don't remember the date.I sent the blanks out to those people myself.He asked me to do it.Q.Was the list by C. H. Harrison, curator, or by C. H. Harrison?A.I could not say as to that.Q.It was a list, and this is a copy of it?A.That doesn't pretend to be a copy of the list; it simply pretends to give the amount of money.There is nothing in that list except money and notes.Q. Didn't that list say `Balance due, $27,500.00?'To refresh your memory?A.No, sir; I have no recollection of anything of that kind being in any list I ever saw.Q.Youhave no definite recollection of exactly what it did contain except you think it was money and notes?A.No, I don't think anything about it.I know it was money and notes because I entered the list myself and I could not make these entries except by taking the list to make them.There is no other way to make them.Q.Did you make out the lists for the present year?A.Make out the lists?"

Thereafter the assessor turned over to the county court a number of personal assessment lists, one of which was the one in controversy.Thereafter the county board of equalization met and organized, as provided by law; and, among other things, the following proceedings were had: On Thursday, April 13, 1905, the following entry appears on page 42 of the records of the county board of equalization of Clinton county: "On motion the following lists which have been sent to the county assessor since he turned his books over to the county court be placed on the personal assessment book for 1905 based on the ownership of property June 1, 1904.C. H. Harrison money, notes, $27,500.00, and other lists."In pursuance of said order there was placed by the secretary of the board upon the personal assessment book of Clinton county, Mo., for the year 1905, at page 143, the following entry:

"Lists sent to the county assessor since he turned his books over to the county court based on the ownership of property on the 1st day of June, 1904, and ordered placed on the assessment book of 1905 by the county board of equalization.C. H. Harrison, Curator, Township Cameron, for Walter, Eunice and Virginia Destiger:

State taxes.......................  $    46 75
                County taxes......................       96 25
                School taxes Cameron..............      275 00
                                                    __________
                    Total ........................  $   418 00
                Money, notes, bonds, and other
                 credits, classes 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...  $27,500 00."
                

Thereafter in the year 1905,...