State v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 08 June 1897
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HAYES, Revenue Collector, v. SNYDER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

41 S.W. 216

139 Mo. 549

STATE ex rel. HAYES, Revenue Collector, v. SNYDER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 8, 1897.

REAL-ESTATE TAXES — PERSONAL LIABILITY — STATUTORY REMEDIES.

1. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 7569, providing that every person owning property on the 1st day of June "shall be liable for taxes for the ensuing year," a personal liability exists against the owner by virtue of the assessment.

2. No personal judgment can be rendered against the taxpayer for taxes against his land, since such mode of collection is excluded by Rev. St. 1889, §§ 7681-7684, 7608, providing for the collection of such taxes by a suit to enforce the state's lien against the land, or by distraining personal property for "all taxes."

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action at the relation of one Hayes, revenue collector, against Robert M. Snyder and George W. Dawson. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. M. Meriwether, for appellant. Scarritt, Griffith & Jones, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action at the relation of Hayes, collector of Jackson county, begun in the circuit court of that county, to recover personal judgment against defendants for the amount of taxes assessed against certain real estate in Kansas City, of which they were the owners on the 1st day of June, 1891. The case was tried upon the following agreed statement: "It is agreed and admitted by the parties to this action that the defendants were the owners of the real property described in the petition at the time the assessment for the taxes in question was made, — that is, on the 1st day of June, 1891; that the defendants sold and conveyed said property on the 30th day of July, 1891, to the United States of America, for the purpose of erecting a building thereon for the use of the United States court, post office, internal revenue, and other government offices." "It is also admitted that the taxes appear on the tax books as set forth in the petition of plaintiff, and that said taxes have not been paid. It is further admitted that said tax was not levied until April 1, 1892, and was not payable until September 1, 1892." There was judgment for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.

The first question presented by this record for our consideration is as to whether or not the assessment of taxes against the real estate owned by defendants at that time created a personal liability against them for the taxes. It is insisted by plaintiff that it did, both by reason of section 7569, Rev. St. 1889, which provides that "every person owning or holding property on the 1st day of June, including all such property purchased on that day, shall be liable for taxes for the ensuing year," and irrespective of the statute. We quite agree with plaintiff with respect to the meaning of the statute, and that by its provisions a personal liability exists against defendants for the amount of the taxes levied upon the land which they owned on the 1st day of June, 1891. But, aside from the statute, the same rule seems to be generally, it not universally, announced by the text writers upon the subject. Thus, in Burroughs, Tax'n, p. 4, § 7, it is said: "The tax is a contribution required of its citizens by the state, and, when it is measured as to its amount by the value of the productiveness of the property, it is still a tax on the person, and there is a personal liability on the person assessed with the tax. The individual, and not his property, pays the tax. The property is resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the tax with which the owner must be charged. * * * The tax is imposed upon the person of the owner on account of his ownership of the property. There is an exception to this general rule in local assessments of taxation on the benefits conferred. This is a species of taxation in rem." The same rule is announced in Cooley, Tax'n (2d Ed.) p. 354.

But it does not necessarily follow that plaintiff can maintain this action for a personal judgment against defendants, for such tax. This depends altogether upon whether or not any other exclusive mode for its collection has been provided for by statute. A tax is not a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, as it is not founded upon contract, and, as a general thing, a debt cannot be created in any other way. "Tax proceedings are in invitum. The tax is an impost levied by authority of the government for the support of the state, and has none...