Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/State ex rel. Wenneker v. Cummings

State ex rel. Wenneker v. Cummings

52 S.W. 29, 151 Mo. 49, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 297
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 19, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 52 S.W. 29 (State ex rel. Wenneker v. Cummings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Wenneker v. Cummings, 52 S.W. 29, 151 Mo. 49, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 297 (Mo. 1899).

Opinion

GANTT, C. J.

This is an action by the collector of revenue of the city of St. Louis to recover certain delinquent personal taxes for the years 1894 and 1895. The petition alleges that John K. Cummings was assessed for the year 1894 as beings the owner of personal property of the value of $23,000, upon which there was levied the sum of $471.50 for state, school, and city taxes; that for the year 1895 he was assessed as being the owner of personal property of the value of $25,000, upon which there were levied taxes to the amount of $512.50 for state, school, and city taxes. The petition further avers that by the laws of Missouri it was provided that all property in said city should be assessed by a board of assessors consisting of ;a president and one assessor for each assessment district; that said president and board of assessors at the proper time and in the manner required by law, proceeded to and assessed the personal property of defendant, and therefore, as required by law, made out their assessment [53]*53books for the said years 1894 and 1895, and afterwards caused to be made out in due time, proper tax bills, in the form and at tbe time prescribed by said laws, and against each person in said tax bills was set down tbe amount so fixed by said assessors as and for tbe taxes on personal property for said years, and due as suck; that tbe collector endeavored, by all lawful means, to collect said tax bills against defendant, but was unable to do so; that thereafter, in pursuance of law, the collector made out and returned his delinquent list of taxes due on personal property, including that of defendant, as above specified; that all things, within the proper time and in proper manner and form, were done and -performed by the proper officers in relation to said uncollected tax bills. He then pleads the delinquency of said taxes, and the duty of the collector to enforce their payment by suit in the circuit court. The pleader avers that the said personal taxes of defendant are correctly set forth in the tax bills filed with the petition, and duly authenticated by the certificate of the collector. He then alleges the interest due, and the contract with the attorney who brings this suit, and prays judgment for the taxes, penalties, and costs. The answer is a general denial, and a further plea that the president and board of assessors did not have jurisdiction to make the assessments, for that no list of the personal property claimed by them to be owned by defendant was made then or prior thereto, as required by sections 7531, 7532, 7535, Revised Statutes 1889, nor did they make out and place the said personal property on the assessment books, as required by the laws of this State. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury.

The plaintiff introduced the tax bills and certificates thereto, certified copies of which accompany this opinion. Objections were made to these tax bills, because — First, the petition did not state a cause of action; secondly, they were not properly certified; third, the taxes due the city could only be recovered by the city under the act of 1897. The objec[54]*54tions were taken under advisement, and -plaintiff rested. Defendant then offered evidence which showed that Chris. D. Brokate was a district assessor of the Seventh assessment district of St. Louis from 1890 to 1894; that defendant lived in that district in 1894 and 1895; that he served the notices on defendant to malee out his list of personal property for assessment; that he went to defendant’s residence, No. 1103 Clinton place, block 362, in St. Louis, June 9, 1894, and left a written notice under the doorsill, after having rung the doorbell and received no answer; he then went to the next door, and served a notice, and as he came back defendant was then outside, and had the notice in his hands; that defendant inquired of the officer if he left that notice, and he was told he did; after much unnecessary profanity, defendant very emphatically swore that he would make no list. . After that, the officer made no further effort to get in the house of defendant to list his furniture, or to ask him about the various kinds of property listed in the blank, but inquired of various persons as to defendant’s property, and finally returned his list with an assessment of $11,500. This amount the president and board of assessors doubled to $23,000 for defendant’s failure to make out any list, as he was notified to do. Notice was likewise served in 1895, and, no list having been returned, defendant was assessed by the district assessor at $12,500, and the board doubled that to $25,000. No specific character of property was listed in either case by the district assessor, but a lumping sum was named in each instance, — $11,500 in one, and $12,500 in the other. Upon this evidence the court found for defendant, and in due time the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, and it was overruled. Plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here by appeal.

; The following are copies of tax bills and certificates:

[55]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Interest of L.W.F.
818 S.W.2d 727 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
Southgate Bank and Trust Co. v. May
696 S.W.2d 515 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Murphy v. Doniphan Telephone Co.
147 S.W.2d 616 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1941)
Price v. Gordon
147 S.W.2d 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1941)
Stanton v. Leonard
130 S.W.2d 487 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
Wymore v. Markway
89 S.W.2d 9 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Champlin v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1933 OK 169 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Gehner
27 S.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 S.W. 29, 151 Mo. 49, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-wenneker-v-cummings-mo-1899.