*1 35 started, trial approximately weeks, date this which was 131 even though physician he was advised light his to do some work. think
We under the evidence in this record this verdict was $5,000.00. If respondent excessive at least will enter a re- $5,000.00 days mittitur of within from adoption ten the date of the opinion, judgment then the will be affirmed as of the’date verdict; otherwise, judgment of the trial court will be reversed and remanded. All concur. at the Relation and to the Use Willis W. Missouri,
State County, Missouri, of Revenue of St. Louis Collector Benson, Company (Plaintiff) v. Respondent, Missouri, Electric Union Corporation, (Defendant) Appellant, No. 41017 220 S. W. (2d) 1. Banc, May 9, 1949. en
Court *2 Carroll, Igoe, & Keefe, H. Robert J. William Ferrell Keefe appellant. Coburn for *3 Bader, PhiUp A. Simmons, Bader, Simmons' & Arthur Edwin U. respondent. Tucker, Allen Chubb for Lewis, Bice, & Maxeiner and for, County Library Hargus District., E. Groh Cass Will H. G. amicus curiae. *4 John, Bradley Noble, Bradley & and Lawrence Noble Tj. Library County District, amicus curiae.
Dunklin BARRETT, is a Louis C. This suit the Collector St. County $18,956.08 a to recover tax of levied on the Electric Union Company’s distributable for the benefit of the St. Louis County Library Library District. The District was established support people a one mill tax was levied for its a of the vote 1945, X., 11; the district. Const. Art. Sec. Mo. R. S. Secs. County 14767-14776. The district includes all of except St. Louis Brentwood, Clayton, Ferguson, Kirkwood, Maplewood, the cities of Heights, University City, Valley Groves, Park Richmond and Webster a public supported, each of which maintains part, at least in public taxation. Mo. R. S. Sec. 14771. (Mo. required by As law R. S. 11280.1-11280.36) Company Electric prop- the Union made return of its distributable erty trench) (poles, wire to the State Commission. .Tax The Clerk County County, of St. presumably county Court Louis clerks of counties which there was distributable appellant, owned certified the correctness of the return to the State Tax The State Tax Commission. Commission in tnrn certi- Louis.County fied to the St. Court its assessment and allocation of the Company’s county, taxable in the $20,294,172. The also set forth and portion Commission certified the the Com- pany’s distributable allocable for tax purposes to each of county and sewer districts in the the cities but it did not an make Library Louis County allocation to the St. District. The Court then mill upon levied the voted one $16,397,988 of the allocated county. certified county to the arrived at subject by subtracting the valuation to the tax $3,896,184 (the total amount the commission had allocated to the nine cities in St. Louis County) $20,294,172 (the from total amount allocated entire Library county), consisting District of all except —the *5 the nine cities.
Upon stipulated the facts the trial court found the tax valid judgment entered in favor of the collector for the penalties. tax and Company here, The Union Electric contends as it did in the court, trial applicable that the tax is not the authorized1 statutes, by law, or and is therefore invalid. an property Taxes the distributable on company electric are levied and in the same manner that collected property (Mo. railroad is A., 11295; taxed R S. Sec. Laws p. 1852) argued, (Mo. it is R since statute Secs. that 11280.1-11286.36; 1945, p. 1825) specifically Laws Mo. does not levy library authorize tax, of a no such tax authorized. that [3] At the outset and to get to crux of problem cer subsidiary questions tain may disposed be of. It is contended that Section only any 11280.16 is the section of statute which authorizes levy on taxes distributable and since does that section levy library not or include authorize a for purposes there is no authority may for the tax. It be conceded the section does not in library terms include a purposes. district or a tax for Furthermore, language it would-strain to find the tax author ized as one for “school in purposes” employed as that term is sectioii. authority may Neither do we think that for the tax found be in the words “and for purposes” other used in And as that section. contention it can be is not aided the statute’s priceless own definition, “Whenever pur and wherever the ‘and for words other ’ poses article, they occur in this shall be held to mean or taxation for purposes, other R .” Mo. See. 11280.24. This previously court has held ‘and purposes,’ “that the words for other authority used connection public with the to tax for the erection of buildings, etc., only have reference purposes.” to taxation for school Halferty State City ex rel. v. P. & L. Co., 1069, 1077, Kansas 346 Mo. (2) 116, But, 145 S. W. subsequently attempt as we shall to demonstrate, we do preclusive. not believe that Section 11280.16 is (cid:127) If preclusive it is question. that would settle the objection Halferty
It is well to now note that case was authority levy tax, not as it is here. objection There the authority was to the Tax State Commission’s to assess and apportion company’s public electric distributable for a sup- water ply authority district and not to the of the the tax. The statutes, construed, provide however did not a method for the Commis- apportionment sion’s Company’s assessment public supply water districts and it was held therefore not that there could be valid tax for such So, districts. in this case, authority appellant’s if there is to assess the property, no there dealing can valid tax. The section with no Commission’s authority apportion the tax to the counties and political sub- (Mo. 11280.11) R S. does divisions not mention objection upon appeal is no there to the Commission’s but authority appellant’s apportionment. assess the or to its apportion appellant’s did not prop- Commission library district, again, erty subsequently we shall attempt to the but demonstrate, lawfully properly assessed in
41 However, county’s power objection instance. the here is to the of a tax levy Admittedly, the tax. can be no lawful collection to there a property utility there lawful the of a until has been on by a by levy manner and the prescribed assessment in the law as apportioned political for the various subdivisions on the valuation Halferty v. rel. Kansas provide. statutes authorize and State ex the Halferty does not hold that City Co., supra. P. & the case L. But of an electric com- property tax on the distributable can be no there political subdivision a tax and the or a railroad unless such pany in Sections and authorized and in terms named levying specifically it is or 11280.1-11280.36. 11295 out, that points noted, appellant as the may also be It may not, under the strictly and court are be construed that statutes to construction, authority which the General Assem supply guise of Gehner, v. 325 rel. Motor Co. ex Ford bly provided. has not State Nevertheless, construc (2) 1. if from reasonable 24, 27 W. Mo. S. subjects relating to the of all the tax statutes patchwork tion authority for property and taxes on distributable given legislative meaning must be found, and can be force the tax Baker, & P. L. v. 316 ex rel. Electric Co. State Union enactments. 859, 853, 399, 293 S. W. Mo. except specifically place, property,
In all such as is the first pursuant there exempted Constitution and statutes enacted Ziegenhein v. Mission Free to, subject taxation. ex rel. to State Taxation, 337, 999; Cooley, 2 School, 332, 998, 162 62 Secs. Mo. policy law taxes shall be the well-settled of our 550-551. “It all purposes and on within the public levied collected territorial ated exempt” [4] jurisdiction of the even though all such State, except must be expressly subjected enumer to rel. L. & P. law. State ex Union Electric specific various specifically held, as Baker, supra. v. In that case it was Co. plainly provide, all then and now statutes Company, including all its distribut Light and Power Electric Union subjected and, designated taxation, for and property, had been able tangible exemptions, property, and all real that there were no —11 light companies, . power . . electric personal, owned state, subject county, municipal . shall taxation for . . private same as the purposes local other ^xtent R. 11280.1. fact Secs. The mere thati persons.” ordinary property property, private per unlike apportioned by Tax sons, State is assessed Commission does county’s property is withdrawn from taxing not mean that such power. tacitly case purposes
For of this it is conceded that the lawfully organized political and established as a district County except of all Louis district consists of St. subdivision. The nine cities. Asembly The General specifically empowered has been authorize counties and appropriate political subdivisions taxes for taxing power. libraries property subject on all their ‘‘ may Taxes be levied on political counties and other subdivisions subject taxing power, provided to their *7 . and further, any county or other political subdivision, when author- ized may law and within the law, levy limits fixed a rate of taxation subject on all property taxing powers to its in excess of the rates limited, herein library, Mo., for . . . purposes.” Const. 10, Art. 11. Sec. The Assembly granted General the has exercised power and appropriate political authorized counties the and sub- levy divisions property subject power to taxes on all taxing its for to “Any county, libraries. political or other subdivision otherwise authorized law support library may levy and conduct a library purposes in addition prescribed to the limits 11, in Section X Article of the Constitution a of on property rate taxation all sub- ject taxing powers its an in amount as now prescribed or hereafter by law; .” 11047.1; Mo. R. S. A., 1945, p. Sec. Laws Mo. So, 1837. in the place, second all appellant’s the including property, its property, county’s distributable is subject to taxing power and tax is authorized for purposes. If the tax was not author- provisions ized certainly these it was unambiguous authorized in language by the governing County statutes Library Districts under which respondent district was established. When the election was propositions held two upon, were voted the establishment of the dis- trict and a tax for support. its Mo. R. S. Sec. 14767. appel- The lant, said, as we have question does not validity election, or, establishment the district as we it, understand the fact of lawfully voting the district’s the tax but insists, because the tax and the district are specifically not mentioned in relating statutes property, to distributable that the tax is unauthorized and is therefore illegal. plainly provisions within the
However, view, the tax in our establishing is held the district election After the statutes. of those shall, in specified such notice ... “the tax voting and year year, like manner collected, with other from and levied county.” R.Mo. districts of said school in the rural taxes in the being collected manner that library tax levied The 14767. collected, question levied and are to school districts relating taxes property assessed, levied taxes on arises; are how place ? first the State Com In Tax for school collected aggregate apportion value dis not assess does mission apportions districts. Commission to school tributable the distributable to the value of aggregate purposes subdivisions and political “ex specified certain and to R. Sec. 11280.11. And in Mo. this districts.” school cept
43 case the Commission did apportion, as we have set forth and as the $3,896,184. Since the Library District consists of all of St. Louis appellant has stipulated, ately the aggregate value of all distributable property in St. aggregate Louis such County, value $20,294,127, [5] in the nine of all such taxable separ- cities, County except the nine cities the apportionable correct sum to the district a simple matter of computation, and there can be no claim the computation anywise erroneous. aAs matter fact, it sought was once compel the Commission apportion to assess and distributable property to a school district but court, carefully analyzing after all these precisely statutes and pointing our how such levied, taxes were to be assessed and held that had authority apportion Commission no Waddill, school K. district. State ex rel. School Dist. of v.C. (2) Obviously, 52 S. it was intended appor- assessed, on distributable should be in the taxes are treated tioned and taxed same manner that school *8 purposes.” a for “school The is tax though even itself not property has aggregate of such County Court, after valuation levy the “shall, . . ascertain and county, . been certified to 11280.16. Mo. R. S. purposes.” . . school for . taxes Sec. levying on distributable of school taxes” purpose “For the of for school average rate taxation county court ascertains ap- county through and its clerk of the all the districts in purposes purposes” proportionately to for school taxes “the said portions Mo. R. districts. several returns enumeration and assessing, apportioning manner of and method The 11280.17. carefully forth set is on distributable taxes levying school here; is it necessary repeat it is not and it Waddill ease in the years. The of nineteen test stood the it has that to note sufficient not men- do of distributable taxation relating to the statutes all the library but when purposes or taxes library, districts tion construed, provisions all the and are considered statutes appropriate relating prop- to distributable well as those relating libraries and assessment, apportionment for the provide they plainly erty, company of an electric on the distributable library tax of a , manner with in like collected, and levied is “be which county.” Mo. of said R. rural school in the taxes Sec: this cannot be because however, contends, that appellant The and- assessed are taxes levied- school by which procedure constitutionally, be not, could and followed in fact not was counties library Sehool district. benefit of taxes for apply made indicated, since, rate, been as has average at an levied are divided, it that is said no sums added were case, rates no in this there was one But but not applied. procedure the school library district in County. library St. Louis district involved here consists of county except the entire and the aver- nine cities age only purpose only rate of taxation for that could the one be library tax and sum being levied. The force and there more effect of library county than one in a single district counties and what or two situation would be is here. It said event not involved is use valuation be unconstitutional in that would imposed greater the tax “would properly on a value than that library allocable to the smaller district —the district to be benefited.” pointed why It is out and' how is no not this true and constitutional question was raised upon appeal. or involved this But as a matter statutory'construction it would seem that the answer lies in the fact, again, County that this district consists of all of St. Louis except the nine properly apportionable towns that the valuation appellant’s to the district is in the county except that allocated the Commission the nine cities. thereby In are to see “imposed this we finable that the tax is aon greater properly value than allocable to the smaller benefited,” district —the district to be or how infringe any it would provision right. or constitutional conclusion,
It in answer upon is our to the substantial issue involved challenged appeal, that the tax is one authorized Ac law. < cordingly, judgment is affirmed. foregoing PER opinion Barrett, C., adopted CURIAM: The All opinion as the en the Court Banc. concur. Mary
George George Smith, Wistrand, Horst, Smith, Louisa John Smith, Smith, Johnson, Reck, H. Fred Minnie Emma Emma *9 Harry Smith, Schuerman, Schuerman, Edmund Gertrude Sophie Schneider, Stuesse, Edwin Franks, Millie F. Hux H. hold, Huxhold, Dell Smith, Little, Emma John Anna Lloyd Gaubatz, Johnson, Nighswander, Minnie Lillian Smith, Boyer, Dreisch, Elizabeth Lorenz John Frederick Lorenz Elroy (Plaintiffs) Appellants, C. v. Dora Smith, Wood, Individually and Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Mary George Smith, Deceased, Schultz, Sigler, Fred Amanda Harry Anna Newman (Defendants) Re Huxhold, Boyer, (2d) No. 40993 220 S. W. 10. spondents, One, May 9, Division