The State ex rel. Gracy v. Catron
| Decision Date | 27 November 1893 |
| Citation | 24 S.W. 439,118 Mo. 280 |
| Parties | The State ex rel. Gracy, Collector, v. Catron, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. -- Hon. Joseph Cravens, Judge.
Reversed.
George Hubbert with M. E. Benton for appellant.
(1) The discrimination against personal property employed in banking and in favor of other personal property not so employed as a necessary consequence, by the local authorities charged with the administration of the revenue law, was a palpable violation of the constitution, under which taxation is lawful only in proportion to the real value of the property taxed and only when uniform upon the same class of subjects, and only when in pursuance of general laws for equalization and levy. Const. Mo., art. 10, secs. 3, 4; Revised Statutes 1879, secs. 6711, 6672, 6673; 2 Desty on Taxation, sec. 118, p. 642; Tierney v. Lumber Co., 47 Wis. 250; Philleo v. Hiles, 42 Wis. 527; Plummer v. Marathon, 46 Wis. 163; Cooley on Taxation, pp. 218, 219 [2 Ed.] (2) The failure on the part of the assessor to return the real and personal property of the county, listed and valued in one book, and the like failure to cover all of both classes of property in one tax book was all in clear disregard of positive law. Revised Statutes, 1879, secs. 6723, 6718; Amended, by Laws of 1891, pp. 192, 193; Revised Statutes, 1879, sec. 6722; State ex rel. v. Cook, 82 Mo. 185; State ex rel. v. Schooley, 84 Mo. 447. (3) The judgment of the court below was practically an unauthorized judicial assessment, equalization and levy of a personal tax against appellant which might have been levied, if at all, against the organized joint stock or corporate body only. Revised Statutes, 1889, secs. 7626, 7610; Bemis v. Boston, 14 Allen, 366; Peabody v. Co. Com., 10 Gray, 97. (4) Even the petition in this case does not aver that any tax was ever assessed, levied or charged against appellant personally. The charge is that "there was legally assessed and levied against said property" the taxes sued for. And what property was assessed? Not any shares of stock. Simply "money, notes, bonds and other credits" and "other personal property" in the name of the "Bank" as "owner." This appears from the evidence. It is submitted that no court, of law or equity, has power to so fix, levy, or distribute a tax charge, or liberty to ignore the exacting rule that every statutory requirement must be met and performed with strictness, as necessary precedent conditions to the collection of a tax. 3 Cush. 567, 572; City v. Mock, 72 Mo. 61; Cooley on Taxation [1 Ed.], pp. 259, 289, 278, 397, 399.
O. L. Cravens and L. W. White for respondent.
(1) In an action to recover a tax levied the defendant cannot show there was inequality in the valuation by the assessor, as the board of equalization is the only tribunal that has jurisdiction to adjust over valuation of property by the assessor. Meyer v. Rosenblatt, 78 Mo. 495; Potosi v. Casey, 27 Mo. 372; State ex rel. v. Dowling, 50 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. County Court, 47 Mo. 594; Ins. Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 462; Railroad v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 482; Cooley on Taxation [2 Ed.], p. 747; Revised Statutes, 1879, sec. 6711; Revised Statutes, 1879, sec. 6671, amended, Laws 1887, p. 232; Revised Statutes, 1879, sec. 6672; sec. 6673, amended, Laws 1887, p. 232; sec. 6674; sec. 6803. (2) The appellant surely misreads the statute when it is contended that the assessor is not authorized to make the assessment list of personal property in a separate book from that containing the real estate. The list for assessment of the Neosho Savings Bank was duly made out and returned by D. P. Weems, its president, under oath, in accordance with the requirements of the statute. The assessment is a judicial act and if the assessment be not properly made as to the taxpayer and properly listed against him, his exclusive remedy is by appeal, and the action of the assessor in listing the property in the name of the Neosho Savings Bank as it was returned by its chief officer becomes final and conclusive on the owner of the capital stock of such bank, unless regularly appealed from to the county board. Mining Co. v. Neptune, 19 Mo.App. 442; Ins. Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 466; Davis v. Macy, 124 Mass. 193; Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 6713. (3) The statute neither requires nor authorizes the assessment of the shares of stock to the stockholder as applied either to the case of manufacturing or other corporations to incorporated banking companies, institutions or associations organized under the laws of the state as private banks. The capital stock and shares may both be taxed and it is not double taxation. Farrington v. Tennessee, 24 L. Ed., U.S.C. Rep. 558.
OPINION
This was a suit by the collector of Newton county to collect taxes alleged to have been levied for the year 1889. The suit was commenced against the Neosho Savings Bank, a banking corporation organized under the laws of this state, having a capital stock of four hundred shares of the par value of $ 100 each. By consent of all parties Catron was substituted as defendant in place of the bank.
The defendant owned one hundred and five shares of the stock, and it appears the president of the bank made out and gave to the assessor a statement showing a list of the stockholders and the amount of stock held by each, as required by section 6692 hereafter set out. The assessment book produced in evidence shows the following facts: The first column is headed, "Owner's name," under which is written "Neosho Savings Bank;" the second is blank; the third is headed "Moneys, notes, bonds and other credits," under which is written $ 35,110; the fourth is headed "All other personal property," under which is set down $ 400. The total valuation made by the assessor is then stated to be $ 35,510. The taxes extended on this assessment aggregate $ 621.43.
The chief defense is that the stock owned and held by the defendant was not assessed or attempted to be assessed. On the other hand, it is insisted by the plaintiff that the statute does authorize or require an assessment of the stock.
Section 6692, Revised Statutes, 1879, provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial