State v. Stamm

• Decision Date: 19 November 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 242,165 Mo. 73
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PEHLE, Revenue Collector, v. STAMM.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 S.W. 242

165 Mo. 73

STATE ex rel. PEHLE, Revenue Collector, v. STAMM.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 19, 1901.

TAXATION — PERSONAL PROPERTY — ASSESSMENT — VALUE — ASSESSOR'S BOOKS.

1. Where defendant, as required by Rev. St. 1889, § 7531, listed his personal property for taxation, giving the value thereof, except his shares in a building and loan association, which he listed as required by section 7539, but, not knowing the value, left that blank, agreeing with the assessor that that officer should ascertain the value from the secretary and insert it, when the value is so ascertained and inserted by the assessor the assessment is valid without notice to defendant, and he cannot object to the tax levied thereon.

2. Where defendant's personal property, except his shares in a building and loan association, was entered on one page of the assessor's book, and such shares were entered on another page, such separation of the items did not affect the validity of the taxes levied thereon.

3. Rev. St. 1889, § 7555, providing that the assessor shall be provided with two books, one for real estate and the other for personal property, is not affected by the act of 1891, authorizing the county court under certain circumstances to order that the assessment be entered in two or more volumes.

Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county; Rudolph Hirzel, Judge.

Action by the state of Missouri, on the relation of F. W. Pehle, collector of the revenue of Franklin county, against Joseph Stamm. From a judgment for relator, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. F. Gallenkamp and J. C. Kiskaddon, for appellant. Jesse H. Schaper and John W. Booth, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J.

Action to recover delinquent taxes on certain property of defendant for the years 1892 and 1893, brought to the circuit court of Franklin county, and tried by the court, a jury having been waived, and judgment rendered in favor of the relator. From this judgment defendant has appealed to this court.

The essential facts of the case are these: October 14, 1892, the assessor of Franklin county called upon defendant, a resident of that county, and requested of him a list of his property for assessment. Defendant, in the presence and with the assistance of the assessor, at once made out a list of his taxable property coming within the purview of section 7531, Rev. St. 1889, valuing the same at $120. It seems, however, that defendant owned certain shares in the Washington Building & Loan Association. The list was made out on a printed form, having blanks for the insertion of the number of taxable building and loan shares owned by shareholders, and the value of each share. The list contained a statement that on June 1, 1892, defendant owned 10 shares in said association, but did not show the value thereof, the blank for valuing the same not having been filled out. The list was sworn to by the defendant. The undisputed evidence shows that when the list was made out and delivered to the assessor the defendant did not know the then value of said shares, and it was agreed between him and the assessor that the latter would obtain the value of same from the secretary of the building and loan association. In making up his "Personal Assessment Book," in the alphabetical list of names the assessor set opposite the defendant's name the value that appeared on the assessment list as delivered to him by defendant, viz. horses, etc., watches, etc., household and kitchen furniture, and all other property, amounting in the aggregate to $120. There being no appropriate column in the assessor's book for the enumeration of shares in building and loan associations, the assessor entered and assessed said shares to defendant in said book at the foot of the alphabetical list of taxpayers names, valuing the same at $1,000, its correct valuation; such valuation having been arrived at by the assessor in accordance with the agreement between the assessor and defendant at the time the shares were given in and listed as above mentioned. The assessment list of 1893 could not be found, but it was admitted on the trial to be the same as the list of 1892. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the assessment of 1893. Defendant paid the taxes assessed against him on the valuation of $120, given in the list, but testified that he had no notice of the assessment of his shares with the building and loan association until the commencement of this action. At the close of all the evidence the defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence, which was refused by the court, and defendant excepted. Thereupon defendant asked the court to declare the law as follows: "If the court believes from the evidence that defendant returned the assessment list read in evidence, and thereafter had no notice that any addition to the valuation of his personal property had been made either by the assessor or by the board of equalization, then the verdict must be for the defendant," — which the court refused, and defendant duly excepted.

The particular question presented for adjudication involves the validity of the assessment of 1892 and 1893 as to defendant's shares in the Washington Building & Loan Association. Counsel for defendant contends: First, that, inasmuch as no valuation was placed on the shares of the building and loan association in the assessment list as delivered to the assessor by the defendant, the action of the assessor in assessing same was without authority of law; and, second, that the assessment of said shares separate from the other personal property of defendant rendered such assessment void. Under the provisions of section 7531, Rev. St. 1889, the assessor is required between the 1st days of June and January to proceed to take a list of the taxable personal property in his county, and assess the value thereof. For this purpose he shall call at the office, place of business, or residence of each person liable to assessment, and require a list of the taxable property owned by such person; and it is made the duty of each person so called on to make, sign, swear to, and deliver to the assessor a list of his taxable property, real and...