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

• Decision Date: 19 June 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 910,117 Mo. 1
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ZIEGENHEIN, Collector, v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.

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 board has the power to assess, adjust, and equalize "any other property" belonging to a railroad company "of the kind specified in section 6866," upon which no returns have been made. It is also the duty of the state board to apportion the aggregate value of property before specified belonging to each company to each county, city, etc., according to the ratio which the number of miles of such road in such county, city, etc., shall bear to the whole length, of the road in this state. The amount so apportioned to each county and city is the assessment upon which taxes are levied. Section 6876 provides: "All property, real, personal, or mixed, including lands, machine and work shops, roundhouses, warehouses, and other buildings, goods, chattels, and office furniture of whatever kind, owned or controlled by any railroad company or corporation in this state, not hereinbefore specified, shall be assessed by the proper assessors in the several counties, cities, incorporated towns and villages wherein such property is located under the general revenue laws of the state, and the municipal laws regulating the assessment of other local property in such counties, cities, incorporated towns and villages, respectively; but the taxes on the property so assessed shall be levied and collected according to the provisions of this article." The property specified in section 6866 which is to be assessed by the state board is that required to be returned to the state auditor, namely, the entire length of the road in this state, and the length of double and side tracks, with depots, water tanks, and turntables. This description, taken by itself, is not clear, but the uncertainty is to a large extent removed when taken in connection with section 6876. That section provides that all other property of the railroad company, real, personal, or mixed, including lands, machine and work shops, roundhouses, and other buildings, shall be assessed by the local assessors. There can be no doubt but section 6866 includes the road, roadbed, bridges, and that property actually used for the purposes of a right of way; but it is equally clear that it does not include lands used for shops, engine houses, and warehouses; and we think it is equally clear that section 6866 does not include lands which may have been purchased for future yard purposes, and which are in fact not used for such purposes at the time of the assessment. A comparison of the two sections can lead to but one conclusion, and that is this: that the property did not fall within section 6866, but did fall within section 6876. The fact that Blackmer and Post refused to sell the property to defendant, except upon the condition that they...