Stouffer v. Crawford

Citation248 S.W. 581
Decision Date22 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 22703.,22703.
PartiesSTOUFFER v. CRAWFORD et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit. Court, Buchanan County; Lawrence A. Vories, Judge.

Suit for injunction by Joseph W. Stouffer against John M. Crawford and others. Demurrer to the petition was sustained, and judgment rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

William M. Morton, of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Merrill E. Otis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

JAMES T. BLAIR.

This suit was brought to enjoin the assessor, county clerk, and collector of Buchanan county from proceeding to perform their respective duties under the Income Tax Act (Laws 1919, p. 718). The trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition, appellant refused to plead further, judgment was rendered accordingly, and this appeal followed. After numerous amendments, the petition finally assumed the following form:

"For amended cause of action, plaintiff states that he is a resident of Buchanan county, in the state of Missouri, and that he is the owner of property real and personal in said county and of property situate outside of the state of Missouri, from which and from the sale of property acquired by him prior to July 1, 1917, he derived during the calendar year 1919, an income in excess of all exemptions and deductions allowed therefrom by the pretended statutes of the state of Missouri, hereinafter mentioned, and that income already received by him from said properties arid from the sale of property acquired by him prior to duly 1, 1917, during the calendar year 1920, with the income he will receive therefrom during the calendar year 1920 will exceed all exemptions and deductions allowable therefrom by said pretended statutes in the assessment and collection of the income tax thereon under said pretended statutes, and that he brings this suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who may join him herein; that said defendant, John M. Crawford, is the duly elected, qualified, and acting county assessor of the county of Buchanan aforesaid, under a term of office which will expire June 1, 1921; that the said defendant, Artemas Ferril, is the duly elected, qualified, and acting county clerk of the county of Buchanan aforesaid, under a term of office which will expire December 31, 1921, and that the said defendant John Porter Srite is the duly elected, qualified, and acting collector of said county of Buchanan aforesaid, wider a term of office which will expire after the year 1921.

"That defendant Crawford, claiming to act by virtue and under authority of his office as assessor, is demanding of this plaintiff that plaintiff make a return of his said income for the year 1919 to defendant Crawford as such assessor, upon the forms provided by defendant Crawford for the purpose of taxation under said pretended statutes, and that defendant Crawford is proposing and planning to assess the said income for the year 1919 of plaintiff for taxation in the manner and pursuant to the provisions of a pretended statute of the state of Missouri entitled `An act providing for the assessment, levying, collecting, and paying of income tax,' approved April 12, 1917, and appearing at pages 524 to 538, inclusive, of the Session Laws of Missouri for 1917, and in the manner and pursuant to the provisions of a pretended statute of the state of Missouri amending said foregoing statute and repealing sundry sections thereof and enacting new sections, approved May 6, 1919, and appearing on pages 718 to 721, inclusive, of the Session Laws of Missouri for 1910, and defendant Crawford states that, upon the completion by him of said assessment, he will certify the results thereof to his codefendant Ferril as county clerk of said county, and, unless restrained by the judgment of this court, defendant Crawford will carry out his plan aforesaid and will assess against this plaintiff a tax upon his said income under said pretended statute, and will certify the result of his said assessment to his codefendant Ferril in his capacity as county clerk of said county.

"And plaintiff further alleges that defendant Crawford is preparing to assess and declares that he will assess within the time prescribed by and under and by virtue of said pretended statutes a tax against plaintiff's said income for the year 1920, and having done that he will certify the results of his said assessment against plaintiff's income for the year 1920 to his codefendant Ferril as county clerk of said county and this, plaintiff alleges said Crawford will do, unless restrained and enjoined by this court from so doing.

"And plaintiff alleges that defendant Ferril proposes and is planning to compute the taxes against plaintiff's said income for the year 1919, claiming to act in so doing under the authority and pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned pretended statutes of the state of Missouri, upon the receipt from his codefendant Crawford of the results of defendant Crawford's assessment against plaintiff's income for the year 1019 certified to him pursuant to said pretended statutes, and defendant Ferril further is proposing and planning and states that he will enter upon a tax book which has been provided for that purpose, a tax against the said income for the year 1919 of plaintiff, and that he will deliver said book to his codefendant Srite, the county collector of Buchanan county aforesaid, for the collection of said tax upon plaintiff's income for the year 1919, so assessed, levied, computed, and extended against this plaintiff.

"And defendant Ferril is preparing to and declares that he will compute and extend upon a tax book under the provisions of said pretended statutes a tax against plaintiff's income for the year 1920, upon the receipt from his codefendant Crawford of the results of said Crawford's assessment of plaintiff's said income for the year 1920, and that he will deliver said tax book with a tax computed and entered therein against plaintiff's income for the year 1920 to his said codefendant Srite for the collection of said tax, and unless restrained by the judgment of this court all these things defendant Ferril will do.

"The plaintiff further alleges that defendant Srite is planning and proposing to enforce against this plaintiff the collection of said taxes against the said income for the year 1919 of this plaintiff, assuming to act in so doing under the authority of said pretended statutes, exercising, in so doing, the powers of his office of collector of the revenue. And defendant Srite is preparing and declares that he will enforce, within the time and in the manner designated by said pretended statutes, the collection against plaintiff of taxes against his said income for the year 1920, as assessed, computed, and extended upon the tax book to be delivered to him all as herein alleged, and all this he will do, unless enjoined and restrained by the judgment of this court. And all these things the said defendants will do with respect to incomes for the years 1919 and 1920, received and to be received by all other persons and corporations who stand in like situation with this plaintiff unless enjoined from so doing.

"Plaintiff further states that, as he has hereinbefore alleged, he is a resident of Buchanan county in the state of Missouri; that he is the owner of personal and real property located in said county and state to the assessed value of $15,000; that there has been assessed against said property taxes for state and county purposes for the years 1919 and 1920, and that he has paid the taxes thereon for the year 1919 and will be required to pay and will pay the taxes thereon for the year 1920, when due for state and county purposes; that, in the assessment, computation, extension into a tax book, and collection of the tax against his said income for the year 1919 and of the tax against his said income for the year 1920, and against the incomes for the years 1919 and 1920 of all other persons and corporations similarly situated with this plaintiff, the defendants herein declare that they will expend county and state funds, derived in part from taxes paid by him upon his said property and derived in part from general taxes for state and county purposes, paid into the general revenues of the county and state by all other persons and corporations paying such general taxes in said county, and unless restrained and enjoined by this court, this defendants will do.

"Plaintiff further states: That said pretended statutes are void, illegal, and of no effect whatever. That they are wholly ineffectual to confer upon defendant Crawford, or upon defendant Ferril, or upon defendant Srite, or either of them, any power or authority whatever to do the things which they are about to do as hereinbefore set out. That said pretended statutes of the state of Missouri are unconstitutional, null, and void, in that they violate the Constitution of the state of Missouri, and particularly the following provisions thereof, to wit: Section 3 of article 10, whereby it is provided the taxes shall be uniform upon the said class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax; section 4 of article 10, whereby it is provided that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value; section 6 and section 7 of article 10, whereby all laws exempting property from taxation except as therein enumerated shall be void; section 8 of article 10, wherein a limitation is placed upon the state tax upon property; section 2 of article 10, whereby the power to tax corporations and corporate property shall not be surrendered or suspended by the act of the General Assembly; section 53 of article 4, whereby the General Assembly is prohibited from passing any special laws exempting property from taxation; section 15, art. 2....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. State of Missouri
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 21, 1941
    ...X of the Constitution of Missouri, because there was a reasonable basis for a distinction between residents and nonresidents, Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581, and a reasonable basis in comity for a distinction between residents of reciprocity states and residents of nonreciprocity states......
  • Bacon v. Ranson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...v. State Tax Commission (Advance Opinions United States Supreme Court, No. 13, 1931 term, p. 720, decided May 16, 1932); Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; Ex Parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W. (2d) 22, 62 A.L.R. 95; Const. of Mo. Art. X, sec. 3; State v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 S.W. 54; ......
  • Fernwood Lumber Co. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1933
    ... ... Shafer ... v. Carter, R. C. L. 89-90; N. O. M. & R. R. Co. v ... State, 110 Miss. 305; Stauffer v. Crawford ... (Mo.), 248 S.W. 581; Pugh v. Pugh (S. D.), 32 ... L. R. A. (N. S.) 954, and note; Rosenthal v. N. Y., ... 57 L.Ed. 212, 226 U.S. 260; ... ...
  • Bacon v. Ranson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ... ... State Tax Commission (Advance Opinions ... United States Supreme Court, No. 13, 1931 term, p. 720, ... decided May 16, 1932); Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 ... S.W. 581; Ex Parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W.2d ... 22, 62 A. L. R. 95; Const. of Mo. Art. X, sec. 3; State ... v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT