State v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBlack
Citation22 S.W. 910,117 Mo. 1
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ZIEGENHEIN, Collector, v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
Decision Date19 June 1893
22 S.W. 910
117 Mo. 1
STATE ex rel. ZIEGENHEIN, Collector,
v.
ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
June 19, 1893.

TAXATION OF RAILROADS — LOCAL PROPERTY — LEVY — EXTENSION ON SEPARATE TAX BOOK.

1. Rev. St. 1879, § 6866, requires every railroad to furnish an annual statement of the length of its road and trackage in the state, with depots, water tanks, and turntables, as well as the number of cars and engines, and makes it the duty of the state board to assess and equalize the valuation of such property. Section 6876 requires all property, including lands and buildings, owned by a railroad company, and not previously specified, to be assessed by the proper assessors in the several counties and cities. Held, that property purchased by a railroad company for future yard purposes, in the possession of the company's tenants, and used by them for manufacturing, with the right reserved to the tenants to remove their buildings at the expiration of the lease, falls within section 6876, and is assessable as local property.

2. Rev. St. 1879, c. 145, art. 8, (section 6876,) requires taxes on local railroad property to be levied and collected according to the provisions of that article, and section 6881 in that article requires such taxes to be extended "on a separate tax book, to be known as the `Railroad Tax Book.'" Section 6898 makes the article applicable to the city of St. Louis. Held, that taxes on local railroad property in said city, not extended in a separate book, as required by section 6881, could not be collected, though the city charter provided that the board of assessors might use as many books in making assessments as should be deemed best, and did not require a separate book for railroad property.

In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Action by the state on the relation of the collector of the city of St. Louis against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

E. D. Kenna and Adiel Sherwood, for appellant. Stone & Slevin, for respondent.

BLACK, C. J.


This is a suit by the collector of the city of St. Louis to recover back taxes for the year 1885, levied upon property described in the petition as follows: "A certain lot of ground fronting four hundred and twenty-three feet and three inches on an alley in city block No. 2,253, by a depth of one hundred and fifty-four feet, bounded on the north by said alley, and on the east, south, and west by property of self." The suit was brought against the defendant railroad company and against Blackmer and Post, but was dismissed as to the latter. The case is here on the appeal of the railroad company.

It seems to be conceded that defendant paid the taxes levied for 1885 upon its property, assessed by the state board for the assessment and equalization of railroad property; and the first question is whether the property is to be deemed a part of the property assessed by the board pursuant to sections 6866 to 6875, or whether it is local property, within the meaning of section 6876, Rev. St. 1879. If it belongs to the first class, then it is evident this suit must fail, for in that event the defendant has paid all taxes which could be legally levied on the property. The agreed facts bearing upon this issue are these: By an ordinance of the city of St. Louis, passed in June, 1881, the defendant obtained permission to lay and operate its main and side tracks on Gratiot street upon the express condition that it purchased all of the real estate lying between given bounds south of that street. The defendant purchased the property upon which the taxes for 1885 were levied of Blackmer and Post on the 10th April, 1883, and on the 13th of the same month leased it back to them for a period of eight years at an annual rental of $800. The lessees occupied the premises for manufacturing purposes when the property was assessed for taxes of 1885. It is further agreed that defendant purchased the property to comply with the ordinance, and for the additional reason that it needed it for side tracks, depots, roundhouses, and other buildings necessary to the operation of a railroad; that Blackmer and Post would not sell the land to defendant, except upon the condition that they were allowed to retain possession for the term of the lease; that defendant purchased the property for railroad purposes, to be used in connection with and as a part of its yards, and on which it intended, and still intends, to build terminal facilities; that at the time of the assessment for 1885 there were no tracks on this property, but since then defendant has laid its main track upon a part of it, and the balance is necessary for the future development of defendant's business. By section 6866, Rev. St. 1879, it is made the duty of every railroad company to furnish the state auditor an annual sworn statement setting forth the length of the road in this state, and the length of double and side tracks, with depots, water tanks, and turntables; the length of such road, double and side tracks, in each county, incorporated city, etc.; the total number of engines, cars, and movable property, and the actual cash value thereof. It is then made the duty of the state board to assess, adjust, and equalize the valuation of all such property of each company; and in doing this the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, No. 28285.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 18, 1928
    ...45; State ex rel. v. Field, 119 Mo. 614; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 50; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 117 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70; State ex rel. v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Peterson v. Railroad, 265 Mo. 462; Sta......
  • State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis, No. 28373.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...void as contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure); Ford v. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 137, 79 S.W. 923; State ex rel. v. Railway, 117 Mo. 11, 22 S.W. 910; St. Louis v. Bernard, 249 Mo. 51, 155 S.W. 394; State ex inf. v. Business Men's Club, 178 Mo. App. 551, 163 S.W. 901; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 ......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, No. 32730.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303, 62 S.W. 433; City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 129, 112 S.W. 516; State ex rel. v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; State ex rel. Sheffel v. McCammon, 111 Mo. App. 630, 88 S.W. 510; City of St. Louis v. Williams, 235 Mo. 508, 139 S.W. 340. (d)......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...v. Hoover, 93 Mo. App. 721; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S.W. 914; Peterson v. Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 182; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 267 S.W. 641; Fanchor v. Board of Commrs., 210 Pac. 241. (4) All charter powers of the city are held......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, No. 28285.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 18, 1928
    ...45; State ex rel. v. Field, 119 Mo. 614; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 50; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 117 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70; State ex rel. v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Peterson v. Railroad, 265 Mo. 462; Sta......
  • State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis, No. 28373.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...void as contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure); Ford v. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 137, 79 S.W. 923; State ex rel. v. Railway, 117 Mo. 11, 22 S.W. 910; St. Louis v. Bernard, 249 Mo. 51, 155 S.W. 394; State ex inf. v. Business Men's Club, 178 Mo. App. 551, 163 S.W. 901; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 ......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, No. 32730.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303, 62 S.W. 433; City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 129, 112 S.W. 516; State ex rel. v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; State ex rel. Sheffel v. McCammon, 111 Mo. App. 630, 88 S.W. 510; City of St. Louis v. Williams, 235 Mo. 508, 139 S.W. 340. (d)......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...v. Hoover, 93 Mo. App. 721; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S.W. 914; Peterson v. Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 182; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 267 S.W. 641; Fanchor v. Board of Commrs., 210 Pac. 241. (4) All charter powers of the city are held......
  • 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