Valle v. Ziegler

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtHENRY
Citation84 Mo. 214
Decision Date31 October 1884
PartiesVALLE v. ZIEGLER, Collector, et al., Appellants.

84 Mo. 214

VALLE
v.
ZIEGLER, Collector, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.


Appeal from Ste. Genevieve Circuit Court.--HON. JAMES D. FOX, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

B. B. Cahoon, H. S. Shaw and D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for appellants.

(1) Equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain the enforcement of tax proceedings, even where no notice

[84 Mo. 215]

of it has been given, on the grounds of informalities, irregularities or errors in the assessment of the tax, not affecting the substantial justice of the tax itself, inasmuch as such things do not as a matter of law in any manner vitiate the tax or assessment. Meyer v. Rosenblatt, 78 Mo. 496; High on Injunctions, sec. 355; Cooley on Taxation, pp. 540, 541, 154, 155, and 156; Chicago v. Fravy, 22 Ill. 34; Beers v. People, 4 Cen. L. J. 190; St. Louis National Bank v. Papin, 3 Ib. 671; State R. R. Tax cases, 92 U. S. 613; R. S. 1879, secs. 6710 and 6731. (2) An injunction will not lie to restrain a county collector from collecting taxes upon personal property which is embraced in his tax book and having on its face all the appearance of regularity as to its assessment. Deane v. Todd, 22 Mo. 90; Sayres v. Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Barron v. Davis, 46 Mo. 394; McPike v. Penn, 48 Mo. 525; Bank v. Meredith, 44 Mo. 500; Hopkins v. Lovell, 47 Mo. 102; High on Injunctions, secs. 354 and 362; Cooley on Taxation, p. 536; State R. R. Tax cases, 92 U. S. 575. (3) The St. Louis water bonds, under the evidence in this case, and under the laws of Missouri, were assessable and taxable in Ste. Genevieve county for 1879. R. S. 1879, sec. 6662; Kirkland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; 15 Wall. 320; Cooley on Taxation 65; Burroughs on Taxation, secs. 41, 134, and 432; Latrobe v. Mayor, etc., 29 Md. 49; Webb v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 198. (4) The two hundred shares of the stock owned by appellees in the Iron Mountain Company (which is an iron manufacturing corporation) and which was assessed at $100,000, was subject to taxation for the year 1879, under the constitution and laws of Missouri. Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 687; Deering v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 196; Bradley v. The People, 4 Wall. 462; Dwight v. Mayor of Boston, 12 Allen 316; Howell v. Cassapolis, 35 Mich. 472; 14 Ind. 27; Cooley on Taxation, 15, 16, 274.

[84 Mo. 216]

Smith & Krauthoff and William Carter for respondent.

(1) The weight of opinion in this and other states is that a court of equity has jurisdiction to prevent by injunction the collection of an illegal or unconstitutional tax. State v. Sanderson, 54 Mo. 203; Mathis v. Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; State v. Saline County Court, 51 Mo. 350; Newmeyer v. M. & M. R. R. Co., 52 Mo. 81; Overall v. Ruenzi, 67 Mo. 203; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 476; Ewing v. Board of Education, 72 Mo. 436; Henry v. Dulle, 74 Mo. 443; R. S. 1879, sec. 2722. (2) The board of equalization had no power to make assessments. R. S., secs. 6672 and 6673; P. R. R. v, Cass Co., 53 Mo. 17. The attempted assessment by the board was void, on the ground of want of notice. R. S., sec. 6673; P. R. R. v. Cass Co., supra; Koch v. R. R., 77 Mo. 354; George v. Middough, 62 Mo. 549. (3) The water bonds were not subject to taxation here. Wiggins Ferry case, 40 Mo. 581; Taylor's case, 47 Mo. 595. A state has no power to impose a tax upon property whose actual situs is within a foreign jurisdiction. (4) The testimony shows that the Iron Mountain Company is a manufacturing corporation, organized under chapter 69, General Statutes, 1865, and that all its property, real and personal, has been assessed at its value, and that the taxes thereon have been duly paid; that the plaintiff, Odile Valle, is the owner of certain shares of stock issued to her late husband by said company, which evidence her interest and estate in such property. Said stock is not taxable against respondent. To do so would be double taxation. R. S., secs. 6692 and 6685; New Haven v. Bank, 31 Conn. 114. The capital stock represents the company. H. & St. Jo. R. R. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo. 550; S. C. 37 Mo. 265; Scotland Co. v. R. R.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Washington University v. Baumann, No. 33803.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...116 Mo. 575. (4) The Missouri cases uphold the remedy by injunction. Mechanics Bank v. City of Kansas, 73 Mo. 555; Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; North St. Louis Gymnastic Society v. Hudson, 12 Mo. App. 342, 85 Mo. 32; Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. 425; Turnverein v. Hagerm......
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 5, 1900
    ...therefore, to the rule adopted in this case to test the validity of the tax." This doctrine was reasserted and applied in Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214, where it was held that injunction was the proper remedy to prevent the enforcement of the collection of taxes against personal property whi......
  • Trust Company v. Wells, No. 29573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 30, 1929
    ...collection of taxes levied without authority of law. 26 R.C.L. 460, 462, secs. 415, 416; Overall v. Ruenzi, 67 Mo. 203; Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300; Arnold v. Hawkins, 95 Mo. 569; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W. (2d) 1021; Jacobs v. Ca......
  • Jacobs v. Cauthorn, No. 22420.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 18, 1922
    ...pointed out that an injunction was the taxpayer's remedy, and to the same effect are the following cases and authorities: Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; State v. Saline County, 51 Mo. 350, 11 Am. Rep. 454; Newmeyer v. M. & M. R. R. Co., 52 Mo. 81, 14 Am. Rep. 394; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Washington University v. Baumann, No. 33803.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...116 Mo. 575. (4) The Missouri cases uphold the remedy by injunction. Mechanics Bank v. City of Kansas, 73 Mo. 555; Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; North St. Louis Gymnastic Society v. Hudson, 12 Mo. App. 342, 85 Mo. 32; Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. 425; Turnverein v. Hagerm......
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 5, 1900
    ...therefore, to the rule adopted in this case to test the validity of the tax." This doctrine was reasserted and applied in Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214, where it was held that injunction was the proper remedy to prevent the enforcement of the collection of taxes against personal property whi......
  • Trust Company v. Wells, No. 29573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 30, 1929
    ...collection of taxes levied without authority of law. 26 R.C.L. 460, 462, secs. 415, 416; Overall v. Ruenzi, 67 Mo. 203; Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300; Arnold v. Hawkins, 95 Mo. 569; Columbia Terminals Co. v. Koeln, 3 S.W. (2d) 1021; Jacobs v. Ca......
  • Jacobs v. Cauthorn, No. 22420.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 18, 1922
    ...pointed out that an injunction was the taxpayer's remedy, and to the same effect are the following cases and authorities: Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214; State v. Saline County, 51 Mo. 350, 11 Am. Rep. 454; Newmeyer v. M. & M. R. R. Co., 52 Mo. 81, 14 Am. Rep. 394; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207;......
  • 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