Town of Potosi v. Casey
| Decision Date | 31 October 1858 |
| Citation | 27 Mo. 372 |
| Parties | THE TOWN OF POTOSI, Appellant, v. CASEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In a suit instituted in behalf of a town, under the 14th section of the act concerning towns (R. C. 1855, p. 1528), to recover of an individual a tax levied on his property, the defendant cannot show that there was inequality in the valuation by the assessor of the taxable property of the town.
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court.
Carter, for appellant.
Frissell, for respondent.
The town of Potosi brought an action against the defendant, under the authority of the 14th section of the act concerning towns (R. C. 1855, p. 1528), to recover the corporation tax levied on his property. No instructions were asked or given, and the only question presented by the record for our consideration arises on the plaintiff's exception to the admission of improper testimony. The defendant was allowed to prove, against the plaintiff's objection, that there wasinequality in the valuation by the assessor of the taxable property in the town, and witnesses were permitted to give their opinions of the relative value of particular pieces of property, as that H.'s lot was appraised by the assessor at a less sum than O.'s, though it was worth greatly more. This evidence was inadmissible; for, if an assessment can be set aside and the right to collect taxes defeated by proof of this kind, there never was and there never will be a valid assessment in the state, for it is impossible to find two persons who will concur in all respects in their estimate of a particular piece of property, and of its value compared to another piece.
No other point is presented, but as the case must be retried, we may now say that we see no reason why the plaintiff ought not to recover.
The other judges concurring, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler
...Cooley on Tax. [2 Ed.] 363, 364; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N.Y. 191; Cooley's Const. Lim. 355; Campbell v. Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473; Potosi v. Carey, 27 Mo. 372; State Spencer, 114 Mo. 574; In re McPherson, 104 N.Y. 306; Wallace v. Meyers, 38 F. 184; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495. (2) Such enactments......
-
Boonville National Bank v. Schlotzhauer
... ... State ex rel. v. Bank of Neosho, 120 Mo. 161; ... Meyer v. Rosenblaat, 78 Mo. 495; Potosi v ... Casey, 27 Mo. 372. (a) When the tax is illegal, one is ... not obliged to apply for an ... ...
-
Boonville Nat. Bank v. Schlotzauer, County Collector
...134 Mo. 212, 35 S. W. 589; State ex rel. v. Bank of Neosho, 120 Mo. 161, 25 S. W. 372; Meyer v. Rosenblatt, 78 Mo. 405; and Potosi v. Casey, 27 Mo. 372; but these cases do not rule a state of facts that we have in the case before us. The uppermost question here (stated, supra) is not in tho......
-
City of St. Louis v. Richeson
...is in conflict with the United States Constitution as well as that of Missouri. To fix a conclusive (Cooley on Tax., pp. 450, 460; Potosi v. Casey, 27 Mo. 372), lien upon real estate (which can only be released by payment), without notice to the owner or opportunity given him to be heard in......