*1 1924. 447 Bellamy Menengali. THE STATE ex WILLIAM Prose T. BELLAMY, inf. cuting Attorney, ex rel. B. et al., DORA HARRIS
Appellants, v. LULA MENENGALI. Two, 19,
Division March 1925. Appellate QUO 1. Action WARRANTO: at Law: Substantial Evidence: Practice. A suit of warranto to school director the oust a ground taxpayer and, not a is an law al- action was. though jury, tried the court without a in favor of appeal, as a will be affirmed on unless it can be said support matter of law that there was no substantial to finding of trial court. Taxpayer: SCHOOL DIRECTOR: Informal Assessment. A married 2. property, her who owned listed to and assessed woman husband, upon taxes, being liable for the which he the assessed (Sec: 11213, tax, taxpayer payment R. is a under statute 1919) providing director, qualified, “have must that a to be S. county year preceding next a state and tax” within one lists, Informality making assessment, or election. 1919) 12801, (Sec. the assess- S. render under the statute R. did not illegal. ment Appeal Error, 2853; 1, Quo 4 War- J.C. to Headnotes: Citations C'yc. Districts, 2, Cyc. ranto, Schools School 35 Appeal Davis, Court.—Hon. Circuit from Saline Samuel
Judge.
.Affirmed. appellants. d
Jamies SJiooh (1) R. director Sec. S. Under .school who shall a resident must be tax within State and right preceding to vote is not a his election. competent its right, it natural OF SUPREME COURT MISSOURI, inf. right upon only statute confer tbe Constitution support government who contribute to the those by Cyc. payment p. of taxes. 15 296; C. J. sec. *2 Nor in conflict with the 37. is it Fifteenth Amendment. 92 Reeves, U. S. L. 214, United States v. 23 Ed. '563. The' right right given to hold officeis not a which has been to by privilege the individual is a but Constitution, Cyc. Legislature. by (a). is conferred 29 1,C, (2) taxpayer person owning property A is a subject pays regularly taxation State to and on which he 536; inf. v. taxes. State ex Sutton 189 Fasse, Mo. State n Cyc. rel. Rebenack, 341; ex v. 135 Mo. 37 1597; Thom- (3) son v. Town of 21 N. II. Newton, 5*99. 595*, Lula Menengali’s conclusively own evidence shows paid any county year pre- not State or had taxes ceding her election and that she not un- payment der Section 11213 to be a school director. The personal by taxes one not authorized to do not so does suffrage right upon confer the him under the Con- provides person stitution which that no shall be allowed paid to unless he shall vote, have tax assessed him. Lennon v. Board of 29 I. Commissioners, R. 329. property of a Where widow is listed the name of is husband, deceased not entitled to vote meeting school district where voter must a tax- payer. ; Cyc. 35 875 383. 63’Yt. It not sufficient that is pays peti- sign a man’s wife taxes authorize him to to requires by signed taxpayers. tion where the it to be law Erlanger Ky. Tate v. School 49 S. 20 District, 337, W. Rep. L. 1370. respondent.
R. D. Johnson
H.
and W. Meschede
(1)
purpose
R.
of Sec.
is
S.
to
prescribe
qualifications necessary
for election to and
holding
among
the office of school
other
director,
qualifications
person holding
prescribed, are that
“
such office shall be a resident
of the district,
county
a State
within
tax,
who.shall
n
OCTOBER,
1924.
449
ex inf.
(2)
year,
preceding*
their election.”
Ms,
one
reasonably
when so
construed,
Said section is to be
seeking
required
person
all that
construed
is that the
is
holding
such office must be the owner of
subject
lawfully
to
and which' has
taxation,
been sub
jected
upon
which a
taxation,
State and
year,
has been
within
either
the owner or
person
by some
for such owner. State ex inf. v.
Atty.
189 Mo.
rel.
Fasse,
537;
Circuit
v. Mack
App.
Cyc. 297.
(3)
41 Mo.
It
lin,
343;
is not neces
ha,ve
sary
even that the
shall
been
assessed
Atty.
the owner’s name. State ex
Circuit
rel.
Mack
App.
(4)
41 Mo.
It
immaterial
lin,
whether the
taxes be
the owner
himself
some other
person for the owner. School District v.
Bowman,
Cyc.
Mo.
22 L. A. 124;
Lamar v.
R.
State,
Dillon,
(5) Primarily
*3
sec.
297,
the collection and assess-
proceedings
ment of taxes are
in rem.
District
School
RAILEY, 1922, C. On 20, the Prosecut- ing Attorney County, of Saline the cir- filed in Missouri, county, proceeding*, cuit court of said warranto caption omitting signature, which, reads follows: as Bellamy, Prosecuting* comes T. “Now William At- torney County of Saline in the of State Missouri, prosecutes who in this behalf for the State of Missouri, and for the said State at the relation of Dora B. Harris, Pragman, Minnie Harris, Louis R. E. Kuntz and Arnold Pinkepank, county,"according in said to the form the of gives provided, statute in such made and cases court here to and be informed that the relators understand paying herein named are resident tax citizens of School County, District Number Saline Missouri, age parents some of whom are of children of school within said school district; that said School District No. is80 duly organized common district said school within county, and as such under the law entitled to have three qualified school within school district directors said who Sup.
307 Mo. —29. MISSOURI, OF COURT SUPREME required of United are to be citizens under the law taxpayers district, who shall resident States, a State and tax within have preceding at their and shall be least election, her or his, twenty-one years age; officeof school direc- of that said great officeof of is an tor District Number.80 said School of dis- trust in the administration the.schools of said day April, of the re- and that on the trict, fourth spondent, Menengali, County Saline, Lula of said of and from that time to exercise, did use and of Missouri, there used and the exhibition of this information has any exercise, still does without exercised, and use legal grant right of the office school what'ever, warrant, 80, and of District Number director during said School claimed and has there still time aforesaid right legal grant, any warrant or does without claim, of directors said to one of school whatsoever, rights, enjoy all the use and have, school and to district, privileges director of the office of school liberties and rights, privileges, office, said said during Menengali, for Lula said she, liberties legal any warrant, all the last time aforesaid, grant usurped right and still does has whatsoever, usurp, County Missouri, at of Saline damage prejudice contempt great of and to the authority That Missouri aforesaid. the State of Menengali been to have Lula claims elected said school district of said office of school director prosecuting April, at- 4th but the on the torney alleges and ever of such election the time *4 Menengali legally not Lula since said the said was time, qualified director, for to hold the said officeof school said school dis- of that she was not a reason and tax within had a state trict she not and preceding- one Missouri within State of day April, election. the date of said said fourth of attorney “Whereupon, prosecuting- in this the said prays prosecutes and of Missouri, behalf premises, and here of the court the consideration may process of law due he awarded the said Menengali in behalf to Lula make answer to the State authority of and show what Missouri, she claims-to enjoy rights, privileges use have, and liberties and aforesaid.”
Respondent filed a return to the above writ, and alleged regular meeting at the annual school held in April, County, in School District 80, in Saline Nio. legally duly Missouri, she was and elected as director of years, qualified a term said district for of three voting meeting of voters said district at such annual duly said District No. that she as such di- and acted as such from rector, has and since election; possessed requisites qualifica- of all the and necessary tions to hold said officeas director aforesaid; during period virtue of said election afore- rights using privileges said, used is still said office school director of the district aforesaid, etc. jury.
The case tried before was the court appellant At the commencement of the trial counsel for suggested to the that in a court casé of this character he proof upon understood the burden was defendant to acquiesced show title to the office. The court in this theory, thereupon respondent offered substantial tes- timony following to establish the facts: prior
That on June, the first there- 1920’, County, to the owned Saline four Missouri, cows, some four brood one and a heifers, sows, horse, half interest an that the automobile; above was listed and for taxation in assessed the name Menengali, present her husband; Joe that she was signed when the assessment made was her husband’s following property name to said assessment list; that the upon mentioned in list, said assessment paid, personal property, horse, was 'her to-wit: One four milk one-half interest cows, sow, brood belonged jointly in an automobile which her and purchased that all of with husband; *5 OF SUPREME COURT MISSOURI, Bellamy Menengali. ex inf. her that the own assessed said money; taxes her in December, was' husband evidence; the tax offered in that receipt as shown by himself; taxes for her and that her husband said she the owner of and property aforesaid, in in the manner aforesaid. December, taxes in the bill of following exceptions: The appears is that defendant is resident of “It admitted in Saline School District Missouri, and resides County, than No. and that she resided there for more cue has at was, preceding April, 1922; rponth held in the of April, 1922, annual school meeting as a di- elected district, duly said and,legally for a of three being rector said district term years, at voters'voting meeting so said elected by in said and that has qualified she meeting ever since the as such director has acted date age twenty- election as and that is above the such, years.” no whatever, The relators 'offered the court without instructions case was submitted to The trial court aforesaid. the evidence of follows: of the issues involved as disposed hereto and this day parties this come the “Now for final taken and submitted the court cause is up seeing after court, and determination. hearing and the issues pleadings evidence, finds hearing warranto here- quo writ of and that the defendant, September, 3922, the 20th! herein on tofore issued ordered is therefore considered, It quashed. should nothing take that the plaintiff court adjudged writ temporary herein, its action hereby and the same is cause be warranto issued the defendant naught, and held quashed expended, herein of the relators costs recover ’’ therefor. execution issue trial, new for a their motion filed Relators an to this granted appeal were overruled, they court. TERM, 1924. inf. pleadings
I. The fully and facts are set out in our repeated again. statement, and need not be This an *6 jury action at tried law, court without a and with- The out instructions. issues were found Substantial respondent, favor of accordingly. entered Evidence. it can be said a mat- Unless as ter of law on the before there no that, record was us, support finding substantial evidence to of the trial plain duty judg it would become our court, to affirm the (Mo.) [Barnett ment. v. 256 S. l. Hastain, c. 752 W. Bright, and cases ex inf. 298 Mo. l. cited; State v. c. 347, Bingham (Mo.) l. 601; W. c. S. 210 S. Edmonds, W. 885.] cqnsideration single presented
II. The issue for our respondent is whether the under was Section 11213,Revised Statutes to hold the office Taxpayer. of school director in District No. to which April elected she at election in 1922. The above was pertinent, section so far here as reads as follows: government “The and control of the district shall composed be in a board of vested directors of three mem- who be bers, States, shall citizens of the United resident taxpayers of the and who shall a district, state county year preceding within next her tax one his, or their shall have election, who resided this State year preceding for her or one next or their election his, twenty-one appointment, years least shall be at age.” respondent pos
It was admitted the trial that qualifications required section, sessed all the the above position except disputed to fill the of school director, taxpayer issue as to whether she was of said paid, and as to whether had or caused paid, to be state within preceding April, election Dictionary,
In Webster’s a tax- New International payer pays In Funk is defined as: “One a tax.” who Wagnall’s Dictionary, & Standard New MISSOURI, OP SUPREME COURT pays any liable for “One who or who is tax,
defined as: ’’ any payment The clear and un- tax. evidence is respondent legal disputed, 1920', on June ^1, described, that it owner heretofore exempt from taxation. not provides that: 12756', Section Revised Statutes person owning holding property “Every on the first purchased including all such June, day, en- be thereon for the shall liable taxes ’’ suing year. undisputed both personal property was of her husband, shows, some list and that she the assessment included signed her husband’s name thereto. provides
Section 12801 that: “No assessment charges property illegal for taxes thereon considered shall *7 any making informality in on account of the as- or in the of the assess- tax on account sessment, lists, being'made re- completed ments not within the time quired by law.”
It shown without ob- was without contradiction and by respondent’s jection, he the taxes husband, that property on his his and that of mentioned wife, assessment and that he list, December tax;es ap- of wife. It benefit himself and pears question, au- the that the from $250; tomobile mentioned in the list assessed at was joint respondent with husband was the owner of the undivided of and that the taxes same, one-half respondent’s were on this machine husband the of both. benefit adoption Act of
Since the of the Married Woman’s personal presumed property in 1880, it cannot possession paid for the was her, of wife or claimed with [Smelser means of husband. v. Meier, the the foregoing, 22.] Mo. the from the 178, 196 S. W. Aside respondent testimony of both and her husband is clear personal prop to the effect that she the owner of erty in list. heretofore described the assessment Attorney-General v. Parrish. respective are We cited briefs of counsel and decisions outside which throw text-books, State, light very little on the merits of the is clear to case. It authority us that no citation of needed to sustain is holding action of the lower court in question. authority any to hold the If office opinion were the able needed, and unanswerable of Attorney ex J., rel. v. Mack- Circuit Rombauer, App. page following, lin, Mo. 339 and settles question expresses subject. fully our It views page 343, sustains action lower court. On Judge concisely theory our the law states Rombauer in a case of this as character, follows: person pays
“If a owns an interest in pays regardless a tax thereon, he fact to his whom the is assessed.” finding conclusively
The of the trial court sus- is tained the evidence below case. accordingly Higbee, affirmed. concurs. G., opinion foregoing PER CURIAM:—The Railey, adopted opinion isC., as the court. All of the judges concur. Attorney-
THE STATE ex inf. W. JESSE BARRETT, Appellant, General, E. A. rel. v. J. C. McCANN, et al. PARRISH *8 Two,
Division March 1925. APPELLATE 1. JURISDICTION: Consolidated School District. This jurisdiction appeal court alone has in a of an from a purpose challenge validity warranto suit whose is to organization of a consolidated school district and to its direc- oust tors, jurisdiction since the Constitution this court has in all involving , cases “title to office under State.” ap- appeal, -: No Printed Abstract: No Index. in which An only record, printed pellant has failed to file a abstract of transcript dismissed, index, wiU be typewritten files