*1 conveyance by alleged concerning the fact judgment the issue of remained judgment rendered any Mary event Campbell. F. In upon a contract because based of the record erroneous the face authority make and which had no next friend stipulation which the approve. jurisdiction had no the circuit court Hyde, C., remanded. not and the cause reversed C., sitting; Bradley, concurs. by Dalton, C., foregoing adopted
PER CURIAM: —The opinion except Hays, J., court. All judges concur opinion absent. L. K. G. A. Waddock, Kennen, M. Kennen
P. Kennen, Maude Eller, person, W. Pierce, Kennen Sarah E. an insane curator, McFarling, guardian v. Lester her H. Elsie McF Hatcher, County Col wife, his arling, E. Mollet Joe J. County, Appellants. 38139. 165 of Audrain lector No. (2d) 681. One, Division
Don for appellants. C. Carter
HYDE, equity action in C.—This is an to set aside col (Laws Tax lector’s deed for sold under the Law. land Chap. 71, 1939.) The p. 125; Art. R. S. trial court entered (claiming deed) decree and under the cancellation defendants appealed. have Monday in November of the
On the first collector of Audrain question nonpayment of taxes for County sold the the land.in years land had been offered for 1933 to 1937 inclusive. This sale November, in Monday on the first both in 1938 and by the collector taxes, of these and nonpayment for the no was made at bid delinquent cover amount taxes either time sufficient to the then 1, 1910, interest, penalty, On November at with and costs. the nonpayment taxes, estate for offering third of said real the of these Mollet, McFarling the and for said defendents bid one dollar real for that county estate and the land to them sum the was sold col lector. the paid Defendants E. life the
Plaintiff Sarah Pierce had a estate in land and inwas possession plaintiffs the sale. The other at time of hold the re Kennen, February, They inherited it from E. C. who died in mainder. 1939 taxes paid by 1931. The 1938 and had remaindermen prior at which defendants to the third sale bid. Plaintiffs $11.83, taxes, for the 1910 tendered defendants dollar one bid expenses paid by They defendants with interest. sale 10% county payment also tendered to the $58.62 full of all taxes with penalties interest and from 1933 to 1937 inclusive. The land was ad vertised “Laddonia, Original thus: Laddonia W1/2, Lot Block 10.” published notices also required showed amounts pay year taxes each with penalties description added. The in the col lector’s “Original deed was: Laddonia, Missouri, Town West one- (10).” half (WV2) Lot Seven Block Ten It was shown that the value of the land was more than $500.00.
The decree trial court stated the following-constitutional grounds setting- aside collector’s deed: 11125-11182,
“That Sections inclusive of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, all other Sections IX, of Article Chapter relating delinquent the sale of lands for taxes, are unconstitutional void violation Section of Article II of the Constitu- tion of the State of and of Amendment XIY to the Constitu- tion America, United States of because the in said *3 purport County to Statutes authorize the Tax usurp Collector to and judicial exercise him powers functions by and authorizing to de- (1) validity termine: the tax assessment; of the (2) that a tax is unpaid delinquent; and and appropriate to the land the to State and thereof, of Missouri divest the owners without suit or other due ” process of law. ‘‘ These constitutional contentions be- cannot sustained. prop The subject erty to tax or amount of the tax need not be determined by judicial inquiry, in order to process.” constitute due Cooley [3 Taxation, 2049, on Sec. “To constitute process, due 1013.] matter of assessment need not ever come before a court, if at stage proceedings some parties affected have an oppor tunity Cooley to heard.” Taxation, 2263, be Sec. “Due [3 1118.] process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment require does not judicial proceedings enforcing a tax.” Cooley Taxation, [3 2615, “A judgment Sec. for the taxes due essential, is'not 1326.] proceeding merely because administrative not judicial and character.” L. 394, R. C. Sec. Furthermore, the United [26 353.] Supreme States Court has said that in assessing phrase taxes the “due of process by judicial law” does not “mean process,” a point that “the ing- out Nation from whom we inherit the phrase ‘due process upon has of law’ never relied of justice courts for the collection of her Anderson, taxes.” v. 95 U. 37, S. 24 L. [McMillen Ed. 335; Kentucky see also Kentucky, Union Co. v. 219 140, U. S. 55 137, 371, Ed. 31 L. S. Ct. cases Missouri provide did not cited.] judicial for a proceeding in the collection of taxes until (Laws 1877 385) 1877, ; 1900, as late p. it was said only that two other provision. states did make such Taxation in Missouri, [Judson’s 14, Chap. pp. Therefore, we uphold cannot ruling 224-225.] that Tax violates Law either the Fourteenth
183 Constitution, present 30 of II of onr be Amendment or Section Art. judgment a without suit and in a provides it for tax sale court. cause Jones-Munger Tax constitutionality upheld, Law was it Section 30 of II against the contention that violated Art. of our provisions of of its insufficiency because notice Constitution of Bader, 259, 336 Mo. sale, (2d) ex rel. Karbe v. W. State S. decided that the for notice sale
This court therein of were saying (is) “it ample process, for due that sufficient answer to the that the bill is unconstitutional because the land proposition denying law, say provided that until the notice process owner due of to right given, sell”; has no to questions collector that the concerning going the notice “are more might raised matters to what ’’ workability constitutionality. of the act rather than be called the its system Clearly, taxation, ample provisions under there are also our opportunity hearing throughout for notice and the whole period assessing, equalizing levying and have County We a Board taxpayers Equalization may appeal. to which Chap. 74, [Art. see Sec. R. S. Our decisions that the County hold 1939.] Equalization judicially; findings Board of acts that its toas valuations part judgment become of a final assessment which it is authorized (subject approval by make the State Board of Equalization); that, stand, findings if permitted such are res judicata so that they collaterally cannot attacked. ex be rel. Johnson v. [State Bank, & 815; Merchants’ Miners’ Mo. 213 W. ex State (Mo. Mc Sup.), rel. Arnold v. 657; Cune S. W. State ex rel. Gehner, Ford Motor Co. 325 Mo. (2d) v. S. W. and cases (27 (2d) 4); City therein cited l. c. State ex rel. of St. Louis Caulfield, 333 Mo. 62 S. However, v. W. such 818.] final of assessment may be reviewed *4 the State Tax Commission, subject to approval Equalization of the State Board of “completes judgment.” which the assessment [Brinkerhoff-Faris Savings Hill, 180, Trust & Co. v. 323 19 (2d) 746, Mo. S. W. 751.] judgment may The final assessment also be by reviewed certiorari proper the record before the Board. ex rel. City of St. [State Caulfield, may Louis v. It directly also be by attacked supra.] action equity. Schlotzhauer, National Bank v. 1298, 317 Mo. [Boonville 732, 489; 298 S. W. 55 A. L. R. Brinkerhoff-Faris Savings Trust & 836, Hill, 328 Mo. 42 (2d) Co. v. S. W. Therefore, viewing the 23.] Jones-Munger Tax part Law as a of system, our whole taxation taking into consideration its for notice sale, of we hold that it not in with the is conflict constitutional provisions invoked, that legislative it is a valid act.
The trial court’s decree grounds further stated setting for deed, aside collector’s as follows: “That, even assuming 11125-11182, Sections inclusive, of Re- Missouri, 1939,
vised of Statutes to constitutional, yet be said Collec- Delinquent
tor’s Deed Land Sale, Sold Taxes at Third dated 4, 1940, McFarling', under Lester IT. defendants which Elsie McFarling null, E. claim title J. Mollet void and no' of following reasons, effect for the to-wit: “(a) Because the collector’s advertisements and notices of sales comply requirements 11125, failed to with the of 11126, Sections 11127, 11129 and 11130 in that' said advertisements and notices stated and recited that tax certificates on the therein lands described were stating to be sold instead of that the lands and lots would be sold, subject redemption equities by such of are provided to as said statutes. “(b) Because the collector’s advertisements and published notices years 1938, 1940 failed properly to describe the West One-half (1/2) premises. above described
“(c) by Because deed executed collector does not sub- comply stantially requirements with the of Section Revised Missouri, Statutes 1939; said deed purport because does not to be from the purports State of a but deed be from Hatcher, defendant County, Joe Collector Audrain Missouri. “(d) Because Dollar paid by the One consideration defendants Lester M. and E. Mollet McFarling grossly J. is and was so and shock ingly inadequate and unconscionable to constitute in and of itself badge fraud, a the West One-half (1/2) premises having of said ’’ value, sale, a at the time of the Five tax excess of Hundred Dollars.
While the notices of sale could have been better worded and the land clearly could have more described, we nevertheless do not anyone see how could have been misled or could have misunderstood the purpose sales or what was be sold. tax land The deed does not the form set follow out in Section R. S. but we need not decide whether irregularity or not this require should alone resale, might or whether it be subsequent deed, remedied be ground assigned cause the fourth aside the sale setting should be sustained. This must be done under the decisions of this court Realty Benson, Bussen Co. v. 349 Mo. (2d) 813; S. W. (Mo. Mahurin Sup.), (2d) 423; v. Tucker and J. C. Nichols (Mo. Sup.), Inv. Co. v. Roorbach 162 W. 274. Defendants S. say destroy that these cases Tax Law anas effective However, means of collecting Section R. pro vides for a method for -the county protect prevent taxes and losses inadequate equities stronger bids. here are much in favor of plaintiffs any than in of cited above cases. Here a case where a life (but tenant of unsound mind not legally so declared until *5 sale) possession; after was in and in which the owner of the re mainder died about the time of the first delinquency. After his probate estate had settled court, his wife and children paid taxes, apparently and 1939 impression under the that paid. earlier taxes had been When the property was later sold for delinquent taxes, 1933 to 1937 defendants made no actual sub- only stantial a nominal of one bid but bid dollar. This was than less the taxes with costs, and less than of the value 1/60 1/500 property. Certainly, circumstances, under these the considera- grossly inadequate and shockingly tion “was so unconscionable” finding law; as warrant a of fraud in and we hold that the Chan- cellor set aside the properly sale. Bradley affirmed’. Dalton, CC., concur.
PER opinion CURIAM:—The foregoing by. Hyde, C., adopted opinion judges as the of the court. All the concur except Hays, J., absent. Metropolitan
Frances Britt Wilkins Life Company, v. Insurance a Corporation, Appellant. 38140. 165 858. W. No. One,
Division Chamier, Hunter & Midgley Blackmar, Kenneth E. Michaels, Newkirk, Eager Harry & Swanson appellant; ColeBates of counsel.