State v. Kenrick

• Decision Date: 12 February 1901
• Citation: 159 Mo. 631,60 S.W. 1063
• Parties: STATE ex rel. STOTTS v. KENRICK et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 S.W. 1063

159 Mo. 631

STATE ex rel. STOTTS v. KENRICK et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 12, 1901.

TAXATION — ASSESSMENT — ASSESSMENT AGAINST ESTATE — LIABILITY OF EXECUTOR — LIABILITY OF HEIR.

1. Where taxes were assessed against the estate of a decedent only, and the executor, after due notice, made his final settlement, and was discharged, he could not be held liable as executor for the taxes due by the estate.

2. By Rev. St. 1899, § 9246, the assessment of taxes on personal property against the owner is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment against him therefor; and hence the heir of an estate could not be held liable for taxes assessed against the estate.

Appeal from circuit court, Mississippi county; H. C. Riley, Judge.

Suit by the state, on the relation of F. M. Stotts, against George Kenrick and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

This suit is prosecuted by the plaintiff, as collector of the revenue of Mississippi county, against George Kenrick, who had been executor of the estate of his father, George Kenrick, deceased, and Albert Kenrick, George Kenrick, William Kenrick, Emma Wilson, and Annie Burrough, the heirs at law of said William Kenrick, deceased, for back taxes alleged to be due by the Kenrick estate. The petition alleges that, in 1894, George Kenrick died, leaving a large estate in the county of Mississippi; that he executed a will, which was duly probated, in which he appointed his son George Kenrick, Jr., his executor, who duly qualified as such, and that $4,400, being the personal assets of the estate, were received by him; that the taxes assessed against said executor for the year 1896 amounted to the sum of $70.30, which were past due and unpaid. The petition further alleges that in September, 1896, the said executor made a final settlement of said estate, and distributed all of the assets in his hands as executor in equal parts to the legal heirs of said deceased. It then asks for personal judgment against the defendants. George Kenrick, for separate answer, admitted that he had been the duly-qualified executor of George Kenrick, deceased, and on June 1, 1895, had in possession the assets of said estate, but that he afterwards gave due notice of his intention to make final settlement, and at the September term, 1896, made final settlement, and was ordered and required by the probate court to distribute to the heirs and legatees all the assets of said estate, and that he did pay same out, and now has no assets of the estate in his hands; that the said claim was never presented to defendant nor to the probate court for allowance....