State v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 23 December 1908
• Citation: 115 S.W. 576,216 Mo. 301
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BROWN, Collector, v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

115 S.W. 576

216 Mo. 301

STATE ex rel. BROWN, Collector, v. WILSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 23, 1908.

1. DRAINS (§ 90)—ENFORCEMENT—ACTIONS— CONDITIONS PRECEDENT—RETURN OF DELINQUENT LIST.

Where the levy of special taxes in drainage proceedings was properly made, and the taxes have not been paid, the failure to return and certify the taxes as delinquent did not affect the state's right to sue for the taxes, and an action may be maintained at any time within five years after the taxes should have been returned delinquent, whether returned or not.

2. DRAINS (§ 84) — ENFORCEMENT — LIEN — RIGHT TO LIEN.

The failure to return as delinquent special taxes levied in drainage proceedings would not affect the state's right to a lien for the taxes, where they were properly levied and remained unpaid.

3. DRAINS (§ 90) — TAXES — ENFORCEMENT — ACTIONS—EVIDENCE— TAX BILL.

Where unpaid special taxes, levied in drainage proceedings, are not returned as delinquent, in actions by the state for the taxes after they should have been returned delinquent, a tax bill ceases to be prima facie evidence that the taxes are past due and payable.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Proceedings by the State, on the relation of E. D. Brown, Collector of Lincoln County, Mo., against A. C. Wilson and others, to collect taxes levied in drainage proceedings. From a judgment in part for relator, he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for relator on all counts.

O. H. Avery, W. A. Dudley, and J. D. Hostetter, for appellant. Peter T. Barrett and Geo. W. Emerson, for respondents.

WOODSON, J.

This is one of the cases referred to and tried with the case of this plaintiff against A. C. Wilson (decided and handed down at this sitting of the court, consequently it is not yet officially reported) 115 S. W. 549.

The petition in this case is the same in all respects as the one filed in that case, except additional parties are made defendants and different lands are sought to be charged with taxes levied against it by the same assessments involved in that case. The answer was substantially the same as is the answer in that case, and the evidence in this did not materially differ from what it is in that case.

The only question in this case not decided in that one regards the taxes assessed against lot 8, survey 1653, township 49, range 2 east, Lincoln county. The amount of the assessment was $650,...