State v. Young

• Citation: 259 Mo. 52,167 S.W. 995
• Decision Date: 02 June 1914
• Docket Number: No. 16570.,16570.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CHAMBERLAIN, City Collector, v. YOUNG.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

167 S.W. 995

259 Mo. 52

STATE ex rel. CHAMBERLAIN, City Collector, v. YOUNG.

No. 16570.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 2, 1914.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 957)—TAXATION—"DUPLICATE TAXATION."

In a city operating under a special charter, the city assessor assessed defendant's personalty for taxation in 1907, on which the city taxes for that year were extended by the city assessor as of June 1, 1907, and the taxes were paid. In February, 1908, the city became a city of the fourth class under the general law, and on June 30, 1908, the mayor, as authorized by Rev. St. 1909, § 9347, procured from the county clerk an abstract of the assessment of all property in the city for 1907, and the taxes for 1908 on the property included in the abstract, according to valuations set forth, which included plaintiff's 1907 assessment, were duly assessed. Held, that such assessment did not constitute duplicate taxation, which exists only when one subject of taxation is required directly to contribute twice to the same burden, while other subjects of taxation belonging to the same class are required to contribute but once, since the taxes previously paid were for the year 1907, while those subsequently assessed were for 1908.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 971) — TAXATION —ASSESSMENT—VALIDITY OF LEVY.

The validity of the levy for 1907 or of the assessment for that year did not affect the validity of the taxes assessed for 1908 on the valuation of defendant's property taken from the previous levy.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 956)—TAXATION—CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT.

A citizen of a city or village under special charter enjoys his residence subject to all applicable laws, among which is the provision whereby the city may elect to enter a general class which its population entitles it to join, and, when it does so, the citizen must abide by the statutes regulating the assessment and collection of city revenue, in cities of such class.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 122) — CITY ORDINANCES—PLEADING.

A city ordinance may be pleaded by reference to the date of its passage and number, and by an allegation disclosing its character, and need not be set out in full.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County; Arch B. Davis, Judge.

Suit by the State, on the relation of John Chamberlain, Collector of the City of Gallatin, Mo., against J. W. Young. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

J. A. Shelby and Virgil G. Yates, City Atty., both of Gallatin, for appellant. S. W. Brandon, of Gallatin, for respondent.

BLAIR, C.

This is a suit for city taxes. The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and plaintiff appealed.

The pleaded facts pertinent to the questions presented here are that in 1907 and 1908 defendant was a citizen and resident of the city of Gallatin; that in 1907 Gallatin was operating under a special charter, and June 1st that year the city assessor duly assessed defendant's personalty for taxation as of the value of $6,155, and the township assessor, on the same date, made a like assessment of the same property, and this last assessment was duly returned, with all other assessed property of the township, to the county clerk of Daviess county and duly equalized and adjusted by the county board of equalization, as the law provides; that the city taxes for 1907 were extended on the assessment made by the city assessor as of June 1, 1907, and defendant, in the same year, paid the city taxes for 1907 so extended against his personalty that in February, 1908, the city of Gallatin became a city of the fourth class by virtue of lawful procedure under the general statutory provisions governing such action, but did not elect a city assessor or make provision for one; that on June 30, 1908, the mayor pursuant to the statute (section 9347, R. S. 1909) and an ordinance duly passed, procured from the county clerk of Daviess county, in which county Gallatin is situate, an abstract of the assessment of all property in the city taxable for state and county purposes, including the property of defendant; "that pursuant to law and the provisions of Ordinance No. 8 of said city, duly passed and approved by the mayor thereof on July 16, 1908, the board of aldermen of said city, on the 20th day of July, 1908, by Ordinance No. 9 of said city, duly passed by them and approved by the mayor thereof on that date, levied" the city taxes for 1908 on the property included in the abstract mentioned, and according to the valuations therein set forth.

Other facts are alleged in the...