State v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 25954.,25954. |
| Citation | 300 S.W. 274 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. and to Use of JAMISON, Collector of the Revenue, v. ST. LOUIS-SANFRANCISCO RY. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.
Action by the State, at the relation and to the use of Adlai J. Jamison, Collector of the Revenue for Shannon county, Mo., against the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. T. Miller, of St. Louis, Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, and W. J. Orr, of Springfield, for appellant.
Action by the collector of revenue of Shannon county to collect taxes claimed to be due said county from appellant, together with interest, penalty, and attorney's fees. The venue was changed to Carter county. There the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant was granted an appeal to this court. The disposition of the appeal involves a construction of the revenue laws of this state; hence our appellate jurisdiction.
Respondent contends that Shannon county was entitled in 1923 to levy for county purposes a rate of 50 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation. Appellant contends that said county could not levy at a rate in excess of 40 cents. It seems that the amount sued for represents the difference between the amount of taxes for county purposes paid by appellant on the 40-cent basis and the amount claimed by respondent to be due on the 50-cent basis.
The case was submitted below on the following stipulated facts:
Article 10, § 11, of our Constitution, limits the rate which counties may levy for taxes for county purposes to 50 cents on the $100 valuation, where the assessed valuation of all property in the county is $6,000,000 or less. Where such assessed valuation exceeds $6,000,000, and is under $10,000,000, the maximum rate is 40 cents for each $100 of valuation. Hence, if the total assessed valuation of Shannon county, by which the lawful rate was ascertainable, did not exceed $6,000,000, the rate of 50 cents was legally assessed, and the judgment should be affirmed. If such valuation exceeded $6,000,000, the maximum rate was 40 cents, and the judgment below should be reversed.
Article 10, § 11, of the Constitution, also provides that:
"The rate herein allowed to each county shall be ascertained by the amount of taxable property therein, according to the last assessment for State and county purposes."
The first question to be determined is what is meant by the "last assessment," as those words are used in article 10, § 11, of the Constitution. If they mean the completed assessment for 1923, and if the county court of Shannon county had no power to reduce the assessment below $6,000,000 by making certain "corrections," as appellant contends, then the levy made by the county court was excessive and invalid.
The case of State ex rel. Blades v. Wabash Railroad Co., 251 Mo. 134, 158 S. W. 26, cited and relied on by appellant, if soundly ruled, is authority strongly supporting appellant's contention that the last assessment, by which the legality of the levy must be ascertained, is the completed assessment for 1923, even though such assessment was not completed until after October 15, 1923.
There is nothing in article 10, § 11, of the Constitution, which requires the assessment, made in the year the levy is made, and in the year in which the taxes are payable, to be taken as and for the "last assessment." The term "last assessment" means the last completed assessment. The Wabash Case so holds. See, also, State ex rel. Carthage v. Hackmann, 287 Mo. 184, loc. cit. 188, 229 S. W. 1078; Steinbrenner v. St. Joseph, 285 Mo. 318, loc. cit. 325, 226 S. W. 890; State ex rel. Dexter v. Gordon, 251 Mo. 303, loc. cit. 309, 158 S. W. 683. It must therefore be regarded as finally settled in this state that the words "last assessment," as used in article 10, § 11, and in article 10, § 12, of the Constitution, mean the last completed assessment.
The term "last assessment" is merely an arbitrary measuring rod which is not necessarily accurate at the time it is applied. In fixing the limit of indebtedness under article 10, § 12, the "assessment next before the last assessment" is used as the measuring rod, notwithstanding the actual assessed value in the taxing district may have markedly increased or decreased between the date of such "assessment next before the last assessment" and the time when the particular bonds are voted.
Although the statute does not specifically provide that the county court shall make the levy of taxes for county purposes at any particular time, such time is quite limited perforce of other provisions. Section 12863, R. S. 1919, requires the county court to determine the sum necessary to be raised for county purposes and to fix the rate necessary to raise that amount as soon as may be after the assessor's books shall be corrected and adjusted according to law. This must be at or before the May term of each year, because, at that term, the county court is authorized and empowered to appropriate, apportion, and subdivide all of the revenues collected and to be collected, etc. Section 12866, R. S. 1919. The legislative intent that the levy should be made at or before the May term is thus quite manifest. State ex rel. Wabash Railroad Co., supra, loc. cit. 141 (158 S. W. 27).
Thus the county court is at least authorized and empowered to make the levy for county purposes at its May term and, in fixing the rate of such levy, the court is governed by the last assessment, which means the last assessment completed at the time such levy is made. It can mean nothing else. If the assessment for the current year is completed at the time the levy is made, well and good. That assessment can be used as the measuring rod to ascertain the rate which can legally be levied. If the assessment for the current year is not complete at that time, then the completed assessment for the previous year must be used.
As a matter of fact, the valuation of merchants' stocks for the current year can never be definitely known at the May term of the county court, for the simple reason that merchants are not required to make their returns until the first Monday in June, and such valuations cannot be equalized until the first Monday in...
To continue reading
Request your trial