State v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., No. 27378.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation295 S.W. 78
Decision Date23 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 27378.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. and to Use of KERSEY, Collector of Revenue, v. PEMISCOT LAND & COOPERAGE CO.
295 S.W. 78
STATE ex rel. and to Use of KERSEY, Collector of Revenue,
v.
PEMISCOT LAND & COOPERAGE CO.
No. 27378.
Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.
May 23, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Suit by the State, at the relation and to the use of A. Parker Kersey, Collector of the Revenue in and for Pemiscot County, against the Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Company, a corporation. Judgment for the defendant on the pleadings, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

S. V. Medling and Von Mayes, both of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

[295 S.W. 79]

GANTT, J.


This is a suit by the collector of Pemiscot county to recover taxes on personal property belonging to defendant for county purposes for the year 1925. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained, and plaintiff appealed. The facts are set forth in the pleadings, as follows:

The assessed valuation of all taxable property in Pemiscot county was over $10,000,000 and under $30,000,000; and by reason thereof section 11 of article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri limits the rate of taxation for general county purposes to 50 cents on the $100 valuation, and section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri limits the rate of taxation for the special tax for road and bridge purposes to 25 cents on the $100 valuation on the taxable property in said county for said year. The county, through its proper officers and in a lawful manner as to processes, levied taxes for the years 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925 with rates on the $100 valuation as follows:

 1922. County tax ....................... 20 cents
                 Road district tax ................ 6 cents
                 Special road and bridge tax....... 10 cents
                which produced, mathematically, the sum
                 of $85,144.65.
                 1923. County tax......................... 22 cents
                 Road district tax.................. 5 cents
                 Special road and bridge tax........ 15 cents
                 Judgment tax....................... 3 cents
                which produced, mathematically, the sum
                 of $108,405.42.
                 1924. County tax......................... 23 cents
                 Special road and bridge tax........ 25 cents
                 Judgment tax....................... 10 cents
                which produced, mathematically, the sum
                 of $133,167.97.
                 1925. County tax........................ 37 cents
                 Road district tax................. 10 cents
                 Special road and bridge tax....... 25 cents
                which produced, mathematically, the sum
                 of $164,090.73.
                

The above tax levies include all taxes levied in those years for all county purposes, including the judgment tax levied in the years 1923 and 1924. Of course, taxes were levied for state and school purposes.

Respondent, in its answer, pleads the following provision in the act of 1921 (Laws of Missouri 1921, p. 678), now act of 1923 (Laws of Missouri, p. 374):

"Provided, however, the county court shall not have power to order a rate of tax levy on real or personal property for the year 1921 which shall produce more than ten per cent. in excess of the amount produced mathematically, by the rate of levy ordered in 1920, and in no subsequent year may any county court or any officer or officers acting therefor, order a rate of tax levy that will produce mathematically more than ten per cent. in excess of the taxes levied for the previous year."

Appellant, in the reply, pleads that the above provision of said act is in conflict with section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, and that said provision of said act is unconstitutional in so far as it may have been intended by the Legislature to relate to the special road and bridge tax authorized by section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution. Therefore appellant contends the county court, in complying with the above provision of said statute could lawfully exclude the taxes realized by the levy made under section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution.

In the case of State ex rel. v. Railroad, 310 Mo. 587, 275 S. W. 932, we held the above provision of said act is not in conflict with section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution, and that said provision of said act is only "regulatory as to the manner in which the discretion of county courts (granted in section 22 of article 10 of the Constitution) shall be exercised."

Appellant concedes that under this ruling at least 12 per cent. of the taxes levied for the year 1925 are illegal.

Respondent contends that 30.93 per cent. of the taxes levied for the year 1925 are illegal, although it asks for a reduction of only 30 per cent. This contention is explained as follows:

The court had the right to levy 10 per cent. more taxes for county purposes for the year 1923 than for the year 1922, or 110 per cent. of $85,144.65, which for the year 1923 would be $93,659.11; whereas, the court levied the sum of $108,405.45, amounting to an excess of $14,746.31 over the amount authorized by law to be levied. That the court had the right to levy 10 per cent. more taxes for county purposes for the year 1924 than for the year 1923, or 110 per cent, of $93,659.11, which for the year 1924 would be $103,025.02; whereas, the court levied the sum of $133,177.97, amounting to an excess of $30,142.95 over the amount authorized by law to be levied. That the court had the right to levy 10 per cent. more taxes for county purposes for the year 1925 than for the year 1924, or 110 per cent. of $103,025.02, which for the year 1925 would be $113,327.52; whereas, the court levied the sum of $164,090.73, amounting to an excess of $50,763.21 over the amount authorized by law to be levied.

Therefore respondent contends the levy for county purposes was an illegal levy to the extent of 45.88 per cent., and the amount of the percentage to be deducted from the taxes for county purposes for 1925 is 30.93 per cent.

The assessed valuation of respondent's personal property was $5,750, and it was taxed on said assessment the sum of $41.41. Respondent paid all the taxes demanded of it by appellant except 30 per cent. of $41.41, amounting to $12.41, which it refused to pay; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...Sec. 9006, R.S. 1919; State ex rel. Union E.L. & P. Co. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 401; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 295 S.W. 78. (3) Under applicable rules of construction Section 9006 (Sec. 7596, R.S. 1929) must be strictly construed in favor of the company and against t......
  • State ex rel. Hughes v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., No. 38800.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1944
    ...State ex rel. McDonald v. Lollis, 326 Mo. 644, 33 S.W. (2d) 98; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land and Cooperage Company, 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; Section 22, Article X, Missouri Constitution; State ex rel. Crow v. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636, 39 S.W. 270. (4) The provisions of Section 8716, ......
  • State ex rel. City of Fulton v. Smith, No. 39843.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1946
    ...137; City of Springfield v. Monday, 353 Mo. 981, 185 S.W. (2d) 788; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; State ex rel. Edwards v. Miller, 21 Okla. 448, 96 Pac. 747; Adams v. City of Hobart, 166 Okla. 267, 27 Pac. (2d) 595; Welch v. City of Nicholas......
  • State ex rel. Guerrant v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 36355.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ...Const.; State ex rel. McDonald v. Lollis, 326 Mo. 644, 33 S.W. (2d) 98; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; State ex rel. Crow v. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636, 39 S.W. 270. (4) Certain provisions of Section 8067, Revised Statutes 1929, conflict with the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...Sec. 9006, R.S. 1919; State ex rel. Union E.L. & P. Co. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 401; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 295 S.W. 78. (3) Under applicable rules of construction Section 9006 (Sec. 7596, R.S. 1929) must be strictly construed in favor of the company and against t......
  • State ex rel. Hughes v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., No. 38800.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1944
    ...State ex rel. McDonald v. Lollis, 326 Mo. 644, 33 S.W. (2d) 98; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land and Cooperage Company, 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; Section 22, Article X, Missouri Constitution; State ex rel. Crow v. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636, 39 S.W. 270. (4) The provisions of Section 8716, ......
  • State ex rel. City of Fulton v. Smith, No. 39843.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1946
    ...137; City of Springfield v. Monday, 353 Mo. 981, 185 S.W. (2d) 788; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; State ex rel. Edwards v. Miller, 21 Okla. 448, 96 Pac. 747; Adams v. City of Hobart, 166 Okla. 267, 27 Pac. (2d) 595; Welch v. City of Nicholas......
  • State ex rel. Guerrant v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 36355.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ...Const.; State ex rel. McDonald v. Lollis, 326 Mo. 644, 33 S.W. (2d) 98; State ex rel. Kersey v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co., 317 Mo. 41, 295 S.W. 78; State ex rel. Crow v. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636, 39 S.W. 270. (4) Certain provisions of Section 8067, Revised Statutes 1929, conflict with the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT