State v. Jaudon

• Decision Date: 31 December 1920
• Docket Number: No. 22277.,22277.
• Citation: 286 Mo. 181,227 S.W. 48
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FLAUGH et al. v. JAUDON, City Treasurer, et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

227 S.W. 48

286 Mo. 181

STATE ex rel. FLAUGH et al. v. JAUDON, City Treasurer, et al.

No. 22277.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

December 31, 1920.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of Charles L. Flaugh and others, to compel Benjamin Jaudon, Treasurer of Kansas City, and another, to receive certain amounts tendered in full of city taxes. Writ of mandamus ordered to issue.

A. N. Gossett and W. W. Greene, both of Kansas City, for relators.

E. M. Harber, M. A. Fyke, and F. M. Hayward, all of Kansas City, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Original action in mandamus. Relators are some six taxpayers of Kansas City, Mo., who sue for themselves and other taxpayers similarly situated. Respondants are Kansas City and Benjamin Jaudon, the treasurer of such city. Upon application this court granted an alternative writ, to which return was duly made, raising some questions of facts. To this relators filed their reply, and the parties thereupon filed an agreed statement of facts, as follows:

"Agreed Statement of Facts.

"It is hereby stipulated and agreed as to the facts and acts set forth and mentioned in the petition or application and alternative writ herein as follows, viz.:

"(1) The city assessor did go through the form of making the city assessment, and did prepare a land assessment book for the year 1920, and did append his affidavit of verification and certificate of verity thereto, in the form required by the charter of Kansas City, and did deliver such book to the city clerk at his office on March 15, 1920.

"(2) The city board of appeals did hold its sessions, and did go through the form of performing their duties in respect to such assessment book, prior to April 19, 1920.

"(3) The city clerk did have such assessment book and present the same to, or had the same accessible to, the common council on April 19, 1920, and the city council did, on April 19, 1920, pass the ordinance fixing the rate of tax levy for 1920, and the same was approved by the mayor on April 20, 1920, and a certified copy thereof, with such land book, was delivered to the city auditor on or about April 20, 1920.

"(4) The city auditor did thereupon go through the form of extending the taxes at the rate specified in said ordinance, in figures and in the appropriate columns on the city's such `Land Book for 1920,' on the assessments as thereon shown, and the words and figures thereon shown purporting to be the respective assessment valuations as stated in said petition and alternative writ to have existed and been thereon prior to June 1, 1920, and attached thereto his certificate as required by city charter, dated May 17, 1920.

"(5) On May 24, 1920, the state board of equalization had not completed its labors, and the values to be fixed by it for assessment of real estate in Kansas City had not been determined, and for that reason the city auditor did not deliver the land tax books to the city assessor, but the same were held until it should be determined whether the state board increased or decreased the land values, so that, if the same were increased or decreased, the city assessor could make an assessment to conform to the values fixed by the state board, and after the state board acted the city assessor did make the assessment conform to the values fixed by said board, and thereafter the land tax books were delivered to respondent Ben Jaudon, city treasurer.

"(6) The state and county assessments, made as of June 1, 1918, and as of June 1, 1919, were the same, except as to the 20 per cent. raise in land valuation made by the state equalization board on the June 1, 1919, assessment on June 1, 1920, and the figures of the city assessor made prior to June 1, 1920, in his books for the city assessment for the year 1920, were the same as such state and county assessment valuations as they were prior to June 1, 1920.

"The relators were severally the owners of the several tracts of real estate described in their petition, which several tracts of land were entered on said land assessment tax books, and appear to have been so assessed, and the taxes so levied and extended, upon said book for the several amounts as originally made, prior to June 1, 1920, and later the several amounts were changed after the 1st day of June, 1920, by drawing lines through the amounts of assessment valuations and amounts of taxes shown on such land book prior thereto, and writing amounts of respective valuations and taxes and increasing the same 20 per cent. as to each tract over the amounts as originally written therein, and that the amounts tendered by the relators to the respondent Benjamin Jaudon, city treasurer, on June 30, 1920, were the amounts as shown to be the amount of taxes due severally on their respective tracts of land prior to June 1, 1920, and prior to making such changes on said land assessment book after June 1, 1920.

"(7) In so far as the various city officers could perform their duties in making and completing such purported assessment valuations, Purported extensions of the tax levy, and making and delivering said land tax book of 1920, before June 1, 1920, and doing other acts above mentioned before that date, the same all were legally done, and in so far as they could do any of the same on or after June 1, 1920, the same were legally done.

"(8) It is the intention of this stipulation to do away with the necessity of taking evidence in support of the facts alleged in pleadings in this cause, and to rest the case upon the question whether the city assessor could hold in abeyance the city assessment until after the state board of equalization had acted, and then to make the city assessment to conform to the values fixed by said board; each party, however, reserving the right to make and present any other contention deemed proper upon the pleadings or this statement.

"There is submitted with this stipulation a true copy of all entries on the land book of 1920 relative to one of the tracts of land of relator Willard N. Munroe, showing the visual appearance of such book as to such tract, and the same is illustrative of such book as to the other tracts of land thereon and therein, and the same respective matters relative thereto appear in such book, as to all land tracts therein.

"It is also agreed that the respective officially certified copies of the city levying ordinance, of the city assessor's affidavit and certificate upon and attached to the said land book of 1920, and of the city auditor's certificate thereto, and the verified copy of the city treasurer's receipt for such book, filed as exhibits with the petition or application of relators for the writ herein, shall be considered in evidence and as a part of this stipulation.

                              "A. N. Gossett and
                              "W. W. Greene
                                 "Attorneys for Relators
                              "E. M. Herber, City Counselor, and
                              "M. A. Fyke, Asst. City Counselor
                                 "Attorneys for Respondent."
                

There is a slight controversy over the agreed facts, but it is immaterial, as we view the turning question in the case. Upon the pleadings and these agreed facts the case was submitted here. The first four paragraphs of the agreed facts indicate that the city official was getting his land tax book ready at the dates and within the times prescribed by the city charter. Under such charter the city board of appeals had no right to raise or lower assessments in general.

The crux of the case lies in the fact that, after the city assessor had prepared his land tax books for 1920, and after the other agencies of the city had acted thereon, the state hoard of equalization raised the land assessments in Kansas City, made June 1, 1918, to January 1, 1920, 20 per cent. The city assessor then raised his assessments 20 per cent., with the result that all land taxes in Kansas City were increased 20 per cent. By this action, the six named relators, after having tendered their taxes, as they stood upon the book before this raise, ask this court to compel the city and its treasurer to receive the same in full of their city taxes for the year 1920. It is alleged that some $500,000 in taxes are involved ay this 20 per cent. raise made by the state board of equalization. The points made, and the further applicable facts, are left to the opinion. This outlines the case.

I. The charter provisions, the constitutional provisions, and the statutory provisions lions are all material in the solving of the mixed question here involved. Section 11, art. 10, of the Constitution, in so far as here applicable, provides:

"Taxes for county, city, town and school purposes may be levied on all subjects and objects of taxation; but the valuation of property therefor shall not exceed the valuation of the same property in such town, city or school district for state and county purposes. * * *

For city and town purposes the annual rate on property in cities and towns having thirty thousand inhabitants or more shall not, in the aggregate, exceed one hundred cents on the one hundred dollars valuation."

This case requires the consideration of the state, as well as the city, scheme of assessment. We take the state scheme first. By section 11348 the assessor is required to—

"between the first days of June and January, and after being furnished with the necessary hooks and blanks by the county clerk at the expense of the county, proceed to take a list of the taxable personal property * * * and assess the value thereof, in the manner following, to wit:

"He shall call at the office, place of doing business or residence of each person required by this chapter to list property, and shall require such person to make a correct statement of all taxable property owned by such person, or under the care, charge or management of such person, except merchandise which may be required to pay a license tax, being in any county in this state, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and the...