This is an agreed ease, submitted to the circuit, court of Texas county, pursuant to the provisions of section 2233, Bevised Statutes Í889, as follows:
“It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the plaintiff and defendant:
“1st. That the plaintiff is a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri.
“2d. That the defendant is the legally qualified and acting collector of the revenue within and for Texas county, Missouri.
“3d. That as such collector the defendant has in his hands the tax books of the said county for the year 1896, •whereon appear the state, county, village and school taxes for the said year 1896.
*572 “4th. That there appear on said books the following-taxes against this plaintiff: State taxes, $560.66; county taxes, $1,121.33; school taxes, $1,368.02; village, $61.31.
“5th. That plaintiff has paid all of said state, village and school taxes, and $121.33 on said county taxes, and has tendered in payment of the balance of said county taxes, county warrants issued by said county for the years 1893, 1891, and 1895, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $700. That said warrants were legally issued, and the plaintiff is the legal owner and holder thereof. That plaintiff still tenders said warrants into court in payment of said county taxes. And the defendant refuses to accept said warrants on the sole ground that county warrants issued in 1893, 1891 and 1895 do not constitute a legal tender in payment of taxes for 1896. That said warrants are tendered in payment of what is known as the county revenue taxes for said year 1896, levied under section 7662, R. S. 1889.
“6th. That plaintiff claims that said warrants constitute a valid and legal tender of county taxes under sections 3205 and 7601, R. S. 1889. Defendant claims that said warrants do not constitute a legal tender for the reason that they were not issued for the year 1896, and because said warrants were issued prior to January 1st, 1896.
“7th. It is further agreed that upon the filing by plaintiff in the office of the circuit clerk for said Texas county, a good and sufficient bond in the sum of $1,500 that the judge of the circuit court may issue an order restraining the collection of said county taxes until the final disposition of this case.
“That this cause is submitted under the provisions of section 2233, R. S. 1889, and it is agreed that the costs of this suit be taxed against the unsuccessful party. It is also agreed that there were outstanding and unpaid warrants of 1896 and the revenue provided for 1896 will not exceed the expenses, of said year.”
After proper steps the plaintiff appealed to this court.
I.
It is not denied that the decision in State ex rel. Egger v. Payne, 151 Mo. 663, decided by this court, in Banc, in July of this year, applies to and is decisive of this case, nor is it seriously denied that the decision in that case follows the principles announced in Andrew County ex rel. Kirtley v. Schell, 135 Mo. 31, nor yet that it conflicts in any way with what was said in Book v. Earl, 87 Mo. 246, was the purpose of the framers of the Constitution of 1875 in adopting section 12 of article X of the Constitution. It is contended, however, that the decision in State ex rel. Egger v. Payne, supra, is not in harmony with the decisions of this court in Logan v. County Court of Barton County, 63 Mo. 336; Reynolds v. Norman, 114 Mo. 509, and Wilson v. Knox County, 132 Mo. 387, and that those cases 'announce the correct rule, and hence it is asked in this ease that the decision in Payne’s case be reviewed and overruled.
It is true as contended by appellant, that in the cases cited by it, this court, construing section 3205, E. S. 1889, held that collectors of the revenue were bound to receive county and city warrants in payment of any county or city revenue accruing to any county or city issuing such warrants, without regard to when such warrants were issued and without regard
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court was right and it is therefore affirmed.