*1 pay- policy premium as to of the controlled held the date court that considerafcien, agreement express for a was an valuable ing dates there rate, get a as policy the lower pre-dating as benefit such supra, they where Prange cases, were cases the Tabler and parties theory that the date of of the bound them the conduct In- controlled, policy Metropolitan in the v. Life case Scotten fol- supra. Respondent says Co., refused to surance that find Halsey low thе ease in later decisions. We not where do Halsey distinguished has case been overruled. It has been disapproved. but The case before us also differs number cases policy provided from the cases where that should until premium paid, policy effective and the delivered and first paid was In premium delivered later. such cases this court but delivery policy held that the date effective company provision had payment waived the premium. payment However, pre- in the before us case only upon mium was made the event which the insurance should be in effect.
Respondent 5729, 1929, cites Section R. Mo. S. Mo. Stat. Ann., page authority which is the statute, anti-discrimination that we policy lapsed, rule that the otherwise policy should would in effect discriminate in favor of in the matter Wise of rates. The answer that Wise had not respondent contracted with as to rate, policy prior July or to date the 1st. there been an Had agreement pre-date policy, agreement an ap would be proved. pay The insured did not premium. the second The com merely pany gave him credit on his account for the amount of the premium. We part have no affirmative action on the of the insured recognizing specified that the policy date in the pro controlled. The application vision policy with reference to misstatement of age any took care of discrimination. The as pleaded facts petition were sufficient to state of action. cause judgment reversed and the cause remanded Cooley for trial. Bohling, CC., concur.
PER foregoing CURIAM: The opinion Westhues, C., is a- dopted opinion as of the court. judges All the concur.
State of Missouri at the relation of Clifford T. Halferty, Collector City Clay County, Revenue of Appellant, v. The Kansas Light Power & Company, a Corporation. (2d) S. W. 116. Two,
Division December 1940. *2 appellant.' Rale for Lawson & Withers, Bates and Leslie E. Conn *3 respond- Wherritt for and Alan F. Lucas, & Fane Johnson, Graves ent.
COOLEY, an Revenue of action the Collector of C. This Clay alleged City of County delinquent taxes Kansas to recover Light & Company, Power defendant. The trial court sustained de general plaintiff’s petition. fendant’s Plaintiff demurrer to de plead petition clined to further. His was dismissed and he appeals. appeal involves construction certain revenue laws The State, appellate jurisdiction. hence our petition alleges ITalferty’s character; official that defendant was public utility corporation engaged producing and is a in selling energy distributing’ electrical over a same system distributing equipment transmission lines and other supervision under and control of the Public Service Commission; distributing that lines it owned transmission equipment territory comprising within the Public Supply Water County Clay (hеreinafter No. of1, District for convenience referred district), alleged “public the water political corporation” to be organized pursuant Missouri, 1935, seq.; to Laws 327 et that p. on 1st, 1935, June had within water district 265.65 defendant of wire subject miles transmission lines same was to assess- ment year tax the uses water district for the 1936; per value of mile said the water district 1st, 1935, on June as fixed the State Tax Commission and the $2,691.95, State Board of making the aggregate value of property in defendant’s the district $715,117; that there was assessed and against lеvied said property year 1936, district, the uses and sum $1,072.62, *5 which pay. petition defendant has to prays refused The judgment tax, said penalties with interest and attorney fees. legislative act under which the water district (Laws exists 1935, p. 2) seq.) et provides such (Sec. “politi- districts shall be territory included to be 3) the (Sec. State and of the corporations” cal take in county, may than one wholly one more or
may within be a water- not have that do and cities parts thereof or districts school 5 of the By contiguous. Sec. territory be must systеm, the but works indebted- others) to contract power (among given district is act the therefor, both, bonds, or obligation special general or issue ness and county certify county court or to the act, and “to provided situate, district which such county or counties within of courts upon all levy of a tax provided to be or amounts the amount ’’ sinking an interest and create district to property within the taxable (and purposes general obligation bonds payment fund May By provided that on before material). Sec. 12 it is or nоt here district shall estimate year board of directors of the 10th each district necessary to be levied of taxes amount the. certify the clerk same to 5, and clerk to in Sec. cause its specified district is situate. or counties which the clerks “shall county'court or courts of the counties Thereupon all, district, upon property within the proceed a tax taxable to provide required by to such estimates.'” Section sufficient funds to and issue bonds therefor money authorizes the district borrow they may provisiоns as to how issued and elaborate be and’makes They obligation may general obligation special paid. be bonds or may general upon If be prop- bonds. “a direct tax levied all taxable issuing erty payment, within district” for their and before provide directors must for the the board of collection of an bonds upon “to annual tax levied all taxable be within dis- trict, pay the . sufficient to interest . .” falls due provide sinking fund for retirement the bonds. "We if doubt any bearing has on present section issue. It does not seem to bе contended that board directors of the district could on tax direct distributable of defendant here involved. provisions special As to the of said obligation .Sec. relative to bonds relevancy it- they clear have no to They can the instant case. are taken care be of out income and revenue of the district. sought the property It is conceded that be taxed is what is called property, authority “original “distributable” assessment” of which vested in the Tax Commission R. S. Ann., p. Stat. 19.29, (Unless Mo. 7930. statutory otherwise nоted R. references will S. and corresponding sections in Mo. Ann.) provides Stat. Said Sec. 9854 that the Tax Commission shall power authority “subject right of the state board of equalization, finally adjust equalize the values of real personal property among the several counties of the State as follows .- .” prior adoption of the State [Note, Tax Commission “original authority law assessment” such as question here in the State Board of upon devolved Equalization.] *6 given Tax Commission is By subparagraph of said Sec. . . and . оriginal of railroads assessment power of
“exclusive one) defendant is utility corporations (of which other similar Equaliza- by State Board exercised possessed . . . now and ’’ by subparagraph 5 may amiss state here that But it not be to tion. Tax shall furnish provided 9854 it that the Commission
of said Sec. is a statement of the value Equalization State Board of to the including to county, the amount be added property in each taxable county, that from the of each “to end to or valuation deducted Equalization may adjust equalize valua- Board of and the State personal property among the in -the tion of real and several counties by provided state as law.” by p. 422, provides Laws of Mo.
Section amended subject here “shall taxation property that such as involved be to that county, State, municipal other local ex- and same property private persons. tent as the thereon And taxes levied may shall be and in manner as is now levied collected or hereafter provided by State, law for the taxatiоn of railroad county courts, Equalization and and and the State Boards of hereby required perform are to given the same duties and are powers assessing, equalizing adjusting same and the taxes on the property set forth in this section as said courts and boards of equalization may empowered have or hereafter be with in assessing, equalizing, adjusting and property; the taxes on railroad . . .” 'president other chief corporation required officer of the furnish a as in company. statement case of railroad relating
The statutes to the assessment taxation of railroad property are Sections 10011 10051. requires Section 10012 chief corporation officer of the to furnish to the State Auditor a length statement of the mileage total of the road’s in the State (including what we here property,”) term “distributable and the mileage of such “in county, and amount each municipal township, incorporated city, village through town or in which it is . .” (Italics ours.) By located this State . Sec. 10016 the required lay State Auditor is before the “state board of assess- equalization” ment and all returns so made to him. 10017 provides Section for the membership (elective officers) State organization Equalization Board of shall
meet at stated “for the purpose times of assessing, adjusting and equalizing- the valuation of such property.” railroad Conceding by 9854, supra, power original given assessment Commission, may the Tax Equalization Board still have perform duties to in connection with the assessment? Said Sec. provides 10017 further that the Board of shall pow- er witnesses, etc., to summon and to increase or reduce aggregate any
valuation “of company railroad included in the statements the clerks companies and railroad made returns be- any other equalize assess, adjust and courts, and shall just may they deem ... companies longing said ” Equali- Board of creating the State law right . Since later repealed duties defining powers and zation and necessarily con- latter far as the *7 except so law State Tax Commission favored) being not “by implication” -(repeal fоrmer flicted with the Equaliza- of Board that the Legislature have intended may the the with perform connection functions to has duties and tion still corpora- utility public of property of the distributable assessment ? tions of apportionment to 10022, relative the Turning to Sec. now by that in mind keeping and properties, against levied railroad to be find: we law, by the same governed is 10066, supra, Sec. defendant ap- shall of the Board provides that Said Sec. involved here such that aggregate of portion the value city incorporated town” township, county, municipal or each “to miles the according ratio which located, the in which such road is city in- township, or “county, municipal completed of track in such (Italics mileage in State. corporated town” bears to the whole required keep a record of ours.) By Sec. 10023 said board By Sec. of the Auditor. proceedings and file same the office State proceedings required upon receipt of the 10024 the Auditor is of re- Equalization, certify of to the secretaries of Board county proper of the spective companies and to courts railroad Equalization, of the certifi- counties the action of said State Board State; valuation mileage to set forth of the road in the cate per mile; rolling stock, (“distributable” thereof the value of etc. property) length county, city, town, village ; of “in roadbed each municipal township;” the total value of tracks and roadbed and side rolling county, city, apportioned and town, village stock assessed and “as to such ” municipal township by (Italics and therein said board. ours.) 10027, inclusive,
Sections 10025 deal with the assessment property, what is called local to be made local assessors and not here involved.
By provided iipon receipt it is from the State Auditor of the certificate of the action of the “board of assessment equalization,” county and the “returns of the assessor and the certif- cities, villages icate towns preceding and made under the section (10027),” court shall “ascertain and the taxes for state, county, municipal township, city, incorporated town vil- and lage and purposes, may school at ... the same rate as be levied property, except on other rate for school and for public the erection buildings, purposes, and for other shall be prescribed ascertained succeeding in the next section . . .” omits or court fails provides in case further Said section year any for them erroneously levied has the taxes or levy the and “ascertain specified,- section shall, as in said town city, incorporated township, state, county, municipal taxes for public build- erection of for the village purposes, and and school thereof, and on the ings purposes, for other town and city incorporated township, municipal county, in such as returned ... . omitted . may have been . village, which . sections . .” Other equalization the state board pur- school provide for taxation statute By See. 10029, 10030, poses. Sections 10031.] [See certify completed, to tax duty county clerk, when the book a rаilroad State of secretary managing officer in this chief the rail- property -of levied on the taxes company a statement of rolling first, valuation of roadbed containing, company road total county” the amount apportioned to such “equalized and stock as municipal township and village, city, “state, county, town or buildings, erection school taxes and taxes taxes, -(second, thereon; local purposes, levied .’’— *8 involved). here wording provisions of said think from the We it clear 10031, inclusive, that words other 10029 to “and Sections authority tax for the purposes,” used in connection with only public buildings, reference to taxation etc., erection of language in purposes. school It is to be noted that these sections connection, in is “municipal townships” still used. And see this 10036, defining “and purposes:”— for other purposes’ “Whenever -words for other oc- and wherever the ‘and article, they cur taxes in this shall to mean or taxation be held taxes, purposes, other shall be include all estimates construed to for which shall of which shall have been have been made or lawfully by any meeting, board, directed officer school school school or taxes purposes, than for school taxes for erection of public buildings provided herein for.”
It appears specific us the inclusion of and reference to school defining taxes in in purposes” “other said Sec. 10036 a evidences legislative only intent applicable to make that definition to taxes or ordered authorized school districts. system
It is cоnceded that our under taxation there of can be no lawful a collection of tax until is a there lawful assessment and there can be no lawful assessment except prescribed the manner property designated by law and of that purpose. law for [See State ex rel. Light al., Union Electric & v. Power Co. Baker et Mo. 853, (cited by S. W. 399 principle both This sides).] well ' authorities, settled and needs no further Appellant citation of argues that under present law the functions of the Equali- Board of of part no and cоnstitute or clerical purely
zation are ministerial In that Baker, supra. rel. v. assessment, citing ex process of appor said, 404, 853, W. c. case, 316 Mo. 293 S. l. —“The Equalization) of (by the Board contemplated tionment here equalization, the board of upon power of a conferred nature body before duty required of that rather a ministerial or clerical but auditor.” the state filed with proceedings should be the record of its the as completion seemingly “It marked But the court added of is still It Cooley Ed.), sec. (4 on Taxation sessment. 1171.] [3 notwithstanding the duty, body perform incumbent on Tax Com power original assessment has been transferred a application of mission, and, being necessary duty in the clerical provi express assessment', performance implied in the rule of ours.) 1919) (Italics (R. sions of Section 13056 S. as amended.” we do reading After in the Baker case opinion careful Board think the court meant there hold that the functions func- Equalization performs no purely are now and that it clerical the numer- process so, tions If of аssessment. what becomes statutory adjust ous provisions requiring equalize and that board to Certainly property among counties, valuation of ? the several etc. Board than is more a mere clerk. dealing
We are assessment and of taxes. with the collection We have said there can no be and collection of without What, then, lawful assessment. is an assessment ? In State ex rel. Asotsky Regan, 749, court, v. 317 Mo. S. W. en banc, said, quoting approvingly from C. J.: “ commonly ‘As the employed, word more an assessment consists proсesses the two listing persons, taxed, property, etc., be and of estimating guide the sums apportion- which are to in an ment of the tax them; designation things between person which subject shall be the apportionment of taxation and the of taxa- tion among persons things prescribed by law; the ratio *9 procedure on part by the property listed, officials which valued, finally and pro the rata declared; merely valuation of the the property for taxation, statutory but the whole imposing mode of tax, thе embracing all proceedings raising money by the ex- power ercise of the of taxation from inception their their to conclu- ” sion.’ 816, C. J. [5 817.] Appellant stresses provisions of some of sections we have referred above to the effect that property all in the water district subject to taxation to the same property private extent as the persons. Of course it only is taxable provided by but law. In State ex rel. School District of K. C. v. Waddill, 330 Mo. 52 (2d) S. W. 476 (banc), (52 (2d) court said 477) S. W. l. c. : “Is it duty of the State Tax separately Commission to assess portion of company’s service property which lies within the duty devolves If such district? no relator school limits of territorial duty Board of the State then the commission, is it upon the levying school district, as a basis for to allocate to the Equalization com- aggregate the service value of taxes, of the assessed portion a pany’s property?” “the negative. The coutr said questions were Both answered statutory.” purely levy in this State and taxes
assessment property to assess jurisdiсtion cited.) The no (Cases assessors cited.) our (Cases Under prescribes. otherwise than as the statute ex system no lawful assessment taxation . there can be cited.) The suit by (Cases law. cept prescribed in the manner Tax compel the State Commission in that case was mandamus Company City Service property to assess Public Kansas relator school district and to within the territorial limits County County additional certificate Court of Jackson issue its stating property of said 'com (distributable) the assessed value of pany in K. Pub. Service Co. was said school district. C. [The company property subject ap to taxation streetcar whose and portionment in the manner same extent and “as same "Waddill, In property.” 10019; ex rel. v. State supra.] discussing particularly that case the school court was whether against property corporation of a service should distributable county be allocated to on the the school districts of basis of the. average country. school enumeration of such in the After districts discussing aрplicable statutory said, various provisions the court (2d) S. W. l. c. 479: concisely,
“Stated prescribed more the method for the statute assessment taxation of property the distributable of a railroad company is aggre- this: The Tax Commission shall assess the gate valuation property, regardless of such of its in this location State. The State Board of equalize ag- shall then such gregate apportion valuation it, mileage basis, counties, on a to the municipal townships, cities, and towns in which the or some part of located, it is certify result of county its action to the proper courts of the counties. aggregate On the apportioned value county, to a county of such shall taxes for county purposes at the same rate levied on other county for purposes; apportionments on the municipal made townships, cities, towns, respectively, it shall taxes at the same rates levied on other within the territorial boundaries of those agencies subdivisions respective for their purposes; and on apportionment made to the it shall make a further levy of taxes for school average rate as heretofore —at ’’ defined. The court referred to and State ex rel. overruled Gottlieb v. Met. Ry. Co., St. Mo. (holding S. W. 603 differently as *10 districts), for school railroads of street apportionment
assessment and said: case by the Gottlieb Section put upon said “The construction language general upon turn analysis. made to It is will not bear ‘ property namely: The said section, beginning of in found taxation subject be . shall company) railroad (of a street extent the same purposes to municipal other county, state, provision This private persons.’ property of personal real rail- street property purpose. fact serves no as a matter of notwithstanding use, is to a though devoted companies, road any respect in is it Constitution property. private Under private just like all taxation; it must be taxed exempt from But, whatever value. proportion property; is, any rule of under language cаnnot intended, general purpose this pro- modifying specific limiting regarded as construction be merely provides that' following The former immediately it. vision taxation to subject to shall be companies of street particular points latter out property; the same extent as other taxed.” property shall be assessed in which the manner is not au foregoing appears the From the railroads upon the distributable thorized to by adjusted the State thereof, equalized until valuation may it, and then certified Equalization, Board of has been only as other' local municipal townships, cities- and subdivisions brings us to consideration This by provided. the statutes viz., that the water dis strongly urged appellant, an insistence mean regarded “municipal township” within the as a trict should be course, an It, a nor ing taxing statutes. these “political city, village. a incorporated town or It denominated organized. might It it was be corporation” the Act which under at sense sometimes “municipal corporation” termed a in the board ex rel. Little River Drain tributed tо that term. See Kinder v. age District, 848, wherein it was held that a 291 Mo. 236 S. W. meaning corporation” drainage “municipal a within the district was Constitution, exempting X from taxation Sec. Art. of the State state, municipal corpora of “the counties and other cogently (and reasoned) tions.” In sense defined broad case, supra, might municipal corpora Kinder said to be a defendant municipal township tion. But does that mean that it is a term taxing municipal township may be, A isnsed statutes? sense, “municipal corporation”— somе and in a _purposes broad (we suggest thought deciding question) but, even without — so, “municipal if is a corporation” necessarily “municipal town ship?” taxing It to be borne in mind that are statutes construed strictly bearing they taxpayer, favor of the in mind that should be applied regard Legislature apparent with due intention *11 apparent statute, promoting a view to with expressed as object in all noted that It will be legislative enactment. townships” "municipal noted the words taxing Avehave provisions corporations” "municipal the words used. Nowhere are have been by our township” is not defined says "municipal Appellant used. Ave in the statutes meaning, as used We think its statutes. enough sub- clearly indicated and is quoted, is understood well 1929, 86, R. S. county. Chap. Illustrative, we refer division of Organization.” relating "ToAvnship Ann., seq., 8119 et p. Mo. Stat. holding for the chapter, provides the first section of that organization. township any county against of an election in Subsequent organization, government provide for the sections By Sec. organization is voted. powers townships township if county” to each provision is made fon "the court of their townships alter increase or diminish the boundaries of number, ref- provided. manner there From these and other might we think it clear erences the statutes that be made too "munici- argument Legislature admit of used the term that when the pal townships” in above it meant subdivisions the statutes referred to generally of a term understood. providing suggested appellant
It is that when Sec. taxing properties, method of was first enacted such "public corporations” as defendant AAraterdistrict not exist and did to, and, argu could not specifically referred if we his understand ment, meaning "municipal township” that the should be extended enlarged so as now corporations, to include such since created. The "municipal townships”.has term been retained statutes. We must’ purposely it Avas and in assume retained tended clearly to mean AA'hat does mean. authority
It is our conclusion that there no Avas lawful for the sought of the tax judgment to be collected and that the of the trial Westimes, court should be C., affirmed. It is so ordered. concurs; Bohling, G., absent.
PER foregoing opinion CURIAM Cooley, C., adopted : The opinion judges court. All the concur.