*1 accept as correct their compelled tbeir but we are not opinion; But, conceding that Mrs. opinion that the testatrix was unconscious. go further mentioned, Lewis the times we cannot was unconscious at indulge at time that she was unconscious another the inference judiсially person note that be- signed the "We when she will. shortly fully and sane there- unconscious one moment and conscious is the entire lack of evi- plaintiffs’ after. The trouble with case or Mrs. suffered the medicine dence that the disease from which Lewis her to render her unconscious whiсh was administered to would tend any length at all. If the disease time, of time tendency, plaintiffs medicine did have such it was incumbent proof offer some thereof.
“Now, alleged Judy imbecility incompetency if the of arose from disease, produced drugs, the violeiice of use of inordinate coupled increasing age, still, with the infirmities and feebleness presumption continuity flowing there would no from such temporary Judy, cause.” de Veld v. l. c. [Von W. 1117.] upon weight evidence; but,
We do not decide this case positive testimony of the face that Mrs. Lewis was sane at the time will, executing plaintiffs are unable to hold that offered contrary. evidence to the substantial reached,
In unnecessary view conclusions for us pass objections argument plaintiffs’ defendants’ counsel. proponents prima We hold that made a facie case on the issue оf capacity mental and that contestants offered no substantial evi- contrary. Accordingly, judgment dence to the hereby re- and the cause remanded with versed directions to enter writing establishing Mary will Lewis, Inos deceased. All concur. Harry the relation and to the use of of Missouri Martin, County, Collector v. R. E. Appellant. Childress, 136. One,
Division December 1939. *2 appellant.
Jos. V. Pitts for Bragg
John.M. respondent. BRADLEY, September 5, 1936, C. This cause was commenced enjoin moving defendant from from a half acre house tract of there A unpaid. temporary were taxes due and in- junction permanent was made appealed. dеfendant alleged that $74.61,
It is there was “due the sum of which has been regularly against following assessed lands, to-wit” (here description); long follows that “said taxes are past due pay defendant has refused and failed same;” plain- tiff advertising “is said lands for sale under the laws of the state (Jones-Munger Adt, of Mo. 1933, pp. seq.), and that the same will Monday be sold on the 1st year” of November of (1936); large that “on said land there building building and that said is the land, most valuable of said defendant threatening building remove said from said land; if said building were removed lands would not be worth the above sum *3 money, and that the said land could not recovered; be the defendant does not pay intend to said taxes and will pay the permitted same if and allowed building, to remove said and if re- removing strained from building said defendant will pay aforesaid allegations taxes.” Other made, necessary were it is but to deal furthеr with petition. the
A temporary restraining order day was made on the petition was filed. Defendant general denial, answered and filed also motion to Among grounds dissolve. the set out in the motion was this: “The assessment against of taxes herein ‘part NW)4, Sec. NW/^ 23, Twp. 27, range 17, and vague, uncertain and void for un ” certainty.’
The record all, is not clear at and we infer and assume some facts. county Martin was collector of County, and defendant owned a half acre of county, land in the correctly described in a deed rec ord “beginning introduced as on rock corner оn east of NY)4 line' NY^, 23, Twp. 27, See. range 17, 34 rods ft. and 7 north of SE cor ner of said NV NY14; thence west rods; 11 thence south and y rods; thence rods; east 7 thence north 11 place 3/7 of rods to 3/7 beginning, containing acre. % The land was described on the assessor’s books and on the collector’s books as a “part NW14, Sec. Twp. 27, range 17,” NW% and, description, under this being advertised for sale when this suit was filed. It is not claimed that such a suit lawfully as this cannot be main-
tained, and ruling without question, proceed though as remedy here proper invoked is part of a collector in the dis- charge of his offiсial duties to collect taxes. As we view situation, questioiis two presented, first, jurisdiction? have we and second, are the facts support sufficient to judgment? Respondent has not us with a brief, favored nothing question juris- defendant, appellant bere, says about the duty, however, question. is our to dеtermine this diction. It [Per- 756-757, (Mo.), (2d) kins al. and cases there v. Burks et City Bldg. Corp. cited; Sash & Door Gate Rust Co. v. jurisdiction appeal 114 W. If we have of this VI, Constitution, providing' it is under that of Section Art. involving an “in the construction of the revenue appeal, cases State,” Supreme laws of lies to Court. desсription
Defendant contends that of the land on the all, tax books and in the notice of sale is no and is wholly support insufficient to valid and therefore insufficient support present judgment. to Section Revised Statutes Ann., 9782, p. 7891, among sec. provides, things, Stat. other “ that the ‘real estate bоok’ contain an ac- assessor’s . shall (in subject curate to assess- ment) legal subdivisions, parts, the smallest smaller lots or parcels, when sections and subdivisions thereof are subdivided parts, into parcels,” lots this section further “at (on books), the close of each the owners’ lists assеssor’s place belong the assessor shall all the that appear lands to owner, properly which cannot be numeri- contemplated section, as order, cal in this which shall other- described, indicatng properly quantity wise and location thereof.” (Mo. Ann., Revised Statutes 1929 Stаt. sec. p. 7893), (Laws 1939, 840), prior repeal p. duty made court to “furnish the recorders of respective coun- book, ties with a known as and list,’ denominated the ‘land county, which shall contain all in the arranged nearly lands as *4 range, numerical order of township, and parts sections of sec- tions, by legal the least subdivisions. making up ... In book, if there be land in section or block that cannot be above, described as set forth it shall briefly described, otherwise indicating quantity the and location thereof. . . .” 9782, Section supra, in provisions addition to the out, above set “duty assessor, makеs the year, it of each in compiling” the real estate book “to procure descriptions of land and the names of the owners from the book known as and denominated ‘the list.’ ” kept by the recorder. As to whether or not the recorder of County kept required by such a book as 9784, Section ap- does pear, duty but the of the assessor an .to have accurate of the land and names the owners on his contingent books is not county on the furnishing court to the recorder the land pro- list book by vided for Section 9784. State Hadley ex rel. v. Adkins et 221 Mo. 119 S. W. was in certiorari, and the defendants were judges of Mc County. Donald purpose quash was to an order of the
499 selecting court a certain depository. bank as tbe The certi- proceeding ground orari was based on the that there had been no notice for published required bids law. The trial court quashed county court, the order of the appealed and the cause was to the St. Louis of Appeals. Appeals Court The Court of transferred Supreme theory cause to the on the Court that the construction of Hadley revenue laws of the State was involved. ex rеl. [State Adkins, v. 119 App. 396, Mo. court, 100 S. W. This on the 661.] question jurisdiction, many cases, reviewed and held that it had jurisdiction. (221 The court 1093) Mo. l. c. 119 l. : S. W. c. “From a (1) juris review the cases we conclude: That when our put diction ground that the construction of the revenue laws of the involved, up State is the law for construсtion must be .; (2) . . it makes no difference where the law found, is to be whether under the title of title, ‘revenue’ or other long so subject as it revenue; relates matter of (3) revenue directly primarily must be concerned, merely indi rectly incident; or as an (4) that the term ‘revenue law’ covers and relating includes laws to the disbursement of revenue and its preservation provisions relating as well as assessment, levy collection of it State ex Broughton rel. Oliver, 201
an action County collector of New Madrid to collect assessments drainage levied in a district. The cause reаched the Springfield Court of Appeals and the court transferred Supreme it to the Court theory that construction of the revenue laws of the State was involved. Oliver, ex App. 272, rel. v. [State This court held construction of a revenue state law was not involved, and transferred the cause back to the In Appeals. Court ruling the question jurisdiction (273 court said S. W. 870) l. c. :
“When the speaks State,’ Constitution laws of this ‘revenue as it does in supra, of Article has reference to body of laws governmental funds public purposes raised, and not body to that law or authorized laws which are the assessment of given benefits meet expenses improve- words, ments. In other purposes the two up separate make schemes: (1) Revenues public governmental purposes, assessment, and the collection, and expenditure thereof; (2) special assessments and their collection expenditure. It supra is to the first class that the constitutional provision applies, under review and not to the latter.
The above sections of the statute books, relative to the tax assess- ments, land descriptions, etc., certainly body are a that which, Stаte general laws governmental funds for purposes raised, rule hence we that “the construction of the revenue laws juris- has that court canse, in this involved
"the State” is appeal. of the diction judgment was, There ? support Are the facts sufficient in otherwise petition, a error may term, typographical what in the description in to the description therein, effect, conformed seem, pro Respondent, in evidence. would deed introduced record a lien theory that the State had for trial on ceeded books, description on the assessor’s lаnd, regardless on taxes if the books, notice of and that or in the the collector’s was shown and then it correctly petition in the described land was by de fact, land was, in owned oral such evidence in any de would cure defect fendant, was' sufficient that such notice of sale. or in the scription on the tax books and become fixed for taxes “does accrue State’s lien The by an annual the tax is determined encumbrance until the amount of levy of [McAnally land and an annual the tax.” assessment of the 348, (2d) 650; Drainage District, Mo. 28 W. v. S. River Little 9747, Ann., p. Mo. Stat. sec. Sec. R. S. 7868.] Flentge Burroughs 74 S. W. ex v. et rel. State The tax bill the land “for back taxes.” was an action survey “pt. 2199.” It was held that such out lot judgment taxes, descrip- a correct support would for description. validate or cure such petition tion would not Wyatt al., 114 rel. et also ex v. Wabash Railroad Co. State [Seе Linney, 1, 21 rel. 26; S. State ex Ward v. W. (Mo.), 535; al. 844; State 216 S. ex rel. Smith Williams (Mo.), Lamb 25 W. ex rel. Ross v. law, prior under the to the enactment of the It is clear that Jones- Munger judgment could obtained Act, valid for taxes not have been if a for concerned, here valid certainly obtained, one, could not been then no under the old have could with house on the have interfered defendant’s removal of his ground jeopardize against the would the collection of taxes such Jones-Munger Act, as tract the house stood. And the description, effect of a bad is no different than the old law. Seс- act, 441, provides tion 9958b Laws page that “no sale n conveyance of land for be valid if the de- taxes shall ... scription imperfect is so as to fail to describe land or lot with certainty. reasonable Jones-Munger Act, 9958a, 441, pro- 1933, page Laws discover, prior vides that “whenever the collector shall conveyance taxes, lands sold for the sale was convey whatever, invalid, lands; pur- cause he shall not such but money chase and the interest thereon shall be refunded out of the county treasury (italics ours), purchaser; and section 9958c, conveyance 1933, page 441, that “if *6 convey because prove taxes shall to be invalid and ineffectual to title insufficient, other cause than the first is or for here) in applicable preceding section (not two enumerated _ 9958b) (Sec. the lien the state has such lands shall trans- in who grantee, assigns, ferred to and vested heirs and shall his taxes, entitled such land amount of interest and to lien on for the legally interest, penalty, due thereon at the time of such with together paid, interest, with amount of all with subsequent ours). and such payment (italics lands shall be bound for the thereof” act, Seсtion 9957a for the 1933, page provides Laws deed by stage reached, collector when that and section 9962c, 1933, page out the form sets for such deed. Section ‘‘ holding any deed executed person of lands or lots by taxes, may for the commence non-payment collеctor lie, quiet suit circuit court of the where such lands title thereto,” facts, his and that shall “the court into examine and if upon hearing appear of such it shall the com- cause plainant’s any cause, title was isor invalid such suit shall not by court, be dismissed complain- but the court . . . where the ant’s title uncertainty invalid shall for defect ascertain the interest, amount due the complainant, principal and be computed at not to per per annum, exceed ten cent and from due, whom and shall decree the payment thereof within a reasonable time of such owner land . . . and in thereof default (payment) shall therefor, direct that such . . . land or lot be sold equity right redemption be for- . . . shall (Italics ever closed. ours.)
Whatever rights remedies be vouchsafed above quoted, deed, last one under who holds a collector’s Jones-Munger Act, аnd where or un- the title is “invalid for defect certainty of description,” are here. not involved Hyde should be reversed and is so ordered. Dalton, CC., concur.
PER foregoing CURIAM: -The opinion Bradley, C., adopted opinion as the of the court. judges All the concur. Building Corporation,
Lee’s Summit & Association, Loan a Minor, Curator, Cross, her Guardian and Geraldine L. S. Worrell, Appellant. S. 19. One, Division December 1939.