*1 93 PER foregoing opinion CURIAM:—Tbe by Fitzsimmons, C., adopted opinion tbe tbe court. All the judges in result concur expressed concurring opinion Tipton, J., filed herewith. (concurring). J. TIPTON, agree with do tbe reason as- —I signed bolding for tbe plaintiff’s main instruction But erroneous. I do assigned believe instruction is erroneous reasons tbe tbe McCloskey Koplar, case of v. 329 Mo. (2d) S. W. note,

92 A. L. and, R. therefore, I concur in tbe result reached. ElUson, J., J., P. Leedy, concur. Drainage Corporation, John Levee and Missouri,

St. District Pillman, Stanley Stanley M. Pillman Appellant, v. M. Mrs. Drainage Wife; Trustees; W. S. Edwards, District h W. Corporation. No. S. County, New Madrid (2d) 1095. Two, 1, 1934. Division December appellant. Paynes & Sharp *2 Ashby

Frank K. and TV. respondents. Banta for Clifton Charles, amicus curiae. B. H.

WESTHUES, judgment Cir- the appeal C. This is an from a of County upon quashing an execution based of New Madrid cuit Court drainage judgment unpaid against the levee and taxes assessed a appellant. respondent, M. in favor of and of land Pillman. Stanlev Appellant against Pillman in court ob- filed suit the circuit judgment unpaid judgment taxes. The was entered tained a -year, special a 1933. On December of the same October fieri subject to land, levy was was made and the issued under

facias January, 1934, term judgment, the tax for sale at the was advertised of court. question the legality by of respondents,

No as to the raised, was levy proceedings obtaining judgment, in or in and advertise- the the alleged However, quash, in ment of sale. motion to it was the Legislature repealed the execution had was void because the of by attempted authorizing the law sale execution the of lands position by in respondents done this case. The the is that enact- 449, inclusive, Laws pages ment Senate Bill No. found at Act, in referred to the briefs as the Jones procedure pre- Revised Statutes act, in scribed the new not authorize a sale under execu- does tion, applies drainage district taxes. the enforcement of and levee Chap-

Appellant corporation VI, incorporated was Article under pre- Revised ter Statutes 1929. Section of that article delinquent in scribes what manner and mode levee taxes are to enforced. following The section contains the clause: sales, pleadings,

“The process, proceedings, practice in cases except arising shall, provided, under this article as herein same and have the same effect in an action enforcement for the general delinquent State’s upon lien for real taxes estate.” (Italics ours.) was prescribed conceded that reference procedure this 9952 of general revenue act controlled

the enforcement of levee and taxes in such wherein matters the levee district were We and! laws silent. will mate number of and, therefore, to Section 10927 it references we think *4 embody best a part opinion. to of it in It this reads: “The district, by ‘levee tax book’ of the as returned the collector secretary supervisors of the to the revenue the of board of of the prima levee shall district be facie in all all evidence courts of matters therein contained. The liens established in pre- and declared the ceding may by delinquent sections and shall be enforced an action on bills, collector, by tax made and county certified the action which regard shall be in instituted the circuit court without to the amount of the claim within six months after December 31st of the vear for brought which said taxes were levied. The suits shall be in the cor- porate against lands, name of attorney the district bv its the land or properties, property paid. or on which such' levee tax has not been brought county property The suit shall be in the in which the except situate, upon when property the tract or in sued be more than county, may one in brought which event the suit be on whole the tract, parcel property any county or in in any portion thereof may be situate.”

97 specific certain will contains It be noted that the above section shall of levee taxes directions as to how suits fori enforcement the pertain- law with the brought, provisions be are at variance requires that ing example, to for- taxes. For the section suits state delinquent. brought become suit within six months after the taxes in not the brought Suits are in name the district to be the of re- attorney for district county name of The the collector. the county. the quired attorney tax of to file these suits and not the may be suit When a in counties tract of land assessed lies two brought in either. Section

In made to the Act no reference whatever was of that will, therefore, presumed provisions. or its various say to repealed, are authorized was not unless we section this Legislature provisions that the meant of repeal to the the by implication. which indicates that nothing We in the act find change of Legislature the enforcement procedure to the intended specific in drainage contrary, levee On act itself taxes. the the apply the specifies not provisions terms that the thereof shall part reading of latter of enforcement of such taxes. Note the the 9963d, page the Section Laws 1933: change any

“. . . nor shall this act construed as to be so may hereafter manner now whatsoever the method mode or that or provided by law levee assess- for the collection of and/or ments, special or other assessments.” making direction, body, that specific by

So law we have here a the changing the of procedure act the with reference to the enforcement state shall enforcement apply taxes not be so construed as to the in mind Legislature evidently of had taxes. The levee prescribed procedure that Section certain and other sections only by part of enforcement of these taxes and that reference provisions general part made of the revenue act had been levee district acts. on and other So order to avoid confusion subject Legislature of the enforcement left clearly reading new law levee as before and a of the taxes same only apply Legislature provisions indicates intended its county to the State and revenue. however, point Respondents, that the out only to, but also repealed the act above referred emergency This and reenacted Section with an clause. law is to 1933. page be found at Laws of It is contended that only this new section date -its became and was the law from the 28, April *5 approval, July when Section date 425, page Act, of what is called took effect. the Jones found on out, case, August, pointed The suit in this was it was not filed until 1933, Law after the date when the Jones was in force. It will commencing that Act, noted the Jones Section act does This 1933. April 7, Laws, approved 425'of 1933 was page on reenacting and. repealing The act emergency clause. contain an not approved was page changes 9952, found at with minor emergency clause. an 28, 1933, act contains April and this fifty-seven Act contains Jones that since the Respondents contend complete prescribes among sections, which is and provisions should taxes, collecting its comprehensive method we page 465, otherwise at found new Section control over the may Ve well Act. Jones scheme of the disrupt entire would question becomes wherein such in a case leave to be decided that contention in their correct respondents If material the issue. page at 9952, found controls and that Section that the Jones Act pro- with the again confronted disregarded we áre should now specifically directs referred to vision of the Act above Jones any change, in construed as to that Jones Act shall not be so collec- provided for the mode whatsoever, manner the method and re- So, adopt if even we assessments. tion of levee construing theory, process statutes so spondents’ then point Legislature, are back to the ascertain the of the we intent change began, is, did where we that governing levee assessments. the collection therefore, be reversed judgment must, The of the circuit court appellant’s execution. quashing with directions to set aside its order Cooley, C., concurs. so ordered. foregoing opinion by ’Westkues, C., PER CURIAM:—The judges adopted opinion court. All the concur. Benjamin G. Under the Will William Chapman, Trustee Jr., Chapman et al., R. Pye, v. Louisa H. Elizabeth E. Pulitzer al., Appellants. (2d) et S. W. 87. Two,

Division December 1934.* 1934; Opinion September Term, February *NOTE: filed at rehearing July 9, 1934; motion for overruled motion to transfer to Court July 9, 1934; opinion en Banc modified on overruled Court’s own motion 1934; July 9, rehearing opinion filed; motion for on modified motion over- September Term, ruled at December 1934.