DeArman v. Williams

1. Taxes, How Collected Upon Removal of Taxpayer. Where one possessed of money resided in a county on the first of June, 1882, where his money was assessed for state and county purposes, between that date and the first of December of that year, and in January, 1883, he removed to another county, taking his money with him, where he invested it in merchandise and paid the license tax for 1883, such removal will not x>revent the officers of the former county from extending and collecting the tax, and the xiayment of the license tax in the latter county will not relieve him from paying the tax due in the former county. 2. Taxation, Equality in : constitution. Perfect equality in taxation is not attainable, and neither of the taxes in question in this case is violative of section 3, of article 10, of the constitution, which declares that taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. 3. Taxes, Collection of: constitutional law : due process op law. The law (Laws 1883, xl 143) which provides that, when any person, owing personal taxes, removes from one county in this state to another, it shall be the duty of the collector of the county from which he removed to send a tax bill to the sheriff of the county in which such person may be, and, on receipt of the same by said sheriff, he shall proceed to collect the tax bill in like manner, as provided by law for the collection of personal taxes, is not unconstitutional, and the tax bill issued under it is “ due process of law.” 4.--:---: -. The mode of levying and collecting taxes is a matter confided to the legislative power, and such laws are laws of the land.

Error to Johnson Circuit Court. — Hon. N. M. Gtvan, Judge. (1) Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class o^ subjects within the territorial limits of the authority-levying the taxes. Const, of Mo., art. 10, sec. 3. According to the agreed statement, it was a plain case of duplicate taxation. Cooley on Tax. 104. (2) The judicial power of the state, as to matters of law and equity, is vested in the ^Supreme Court, courts of appeal, criminal, probate, county, and municipal corporation courts. Const, of Mo., art. 4, sec. 1. The attempt by the legislature (Laws 1883, p. 143) to invest the several county collectors with judicial power, by authorizing them to issue final process, was unconstitutional and void. State v. Steptoe, 81 Mo. 411. The paper issued by Williams, collector of Johnson county, to the sheriff of Bates county, was not due process of law. MiTlett v. The People, 25 Am. Law Reg. [111.] 785; Ingersoll v. Jeffords, 55 Miss. 37; Ex parte Zibold, 20 . Cent. Law Journal, 431. The issuance of any sort of process, original, mesne, or final, in a cause, is a judicial act, and can only be done by a tribunal which possesses judicial powers. 2 Bouv. Law. Hie. 387; 3 Wendell’s Blk. Com., top p. 270-292; Flournoy v. Jeffersonville, 17 Ind. 173. Every writ which authorizes an officer to carry into effect a judgment is an execution. Freeman on Ex. [Ed. 1884], sec. 1. “Due process of law, in each particular case, means sncli an exercise of the powers of government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs.” Cooley on Const. Lim. (Ed. 1874) side p. 357. A party cannot be bound by a delegated exercise of judicial power, whether the delegation be by the court or by legislative act devolving judicial duties on ministerial officers. Proceedings in such cases would be void. Cooley on Const. Lim. (Ed. 1874) side p. 410 ; Hall v. Maries, 34 111. 363: Chandler v. Nash, 5 Mich. 409. (1) “Absolute equality and strict justice are unattainable in tax proceedings.” The legislature must be left to decide for itself how nearly it is possible to approximate so desirable a result. ‘ ‘ It must happen under any tax law that some property will be taxed twice, while other property will escape taxation altogether.. * * Nevertheless, no question of constitutional law is involved in these cases, and the legislative control is. complete.” Cooley on Const. Lim., side p. 513 ; Insurance Co. v. Board of Assessors, 56 Mo. 503, 516. But even if this were a double taxation, the property being regularly assessed in Johnson county, it thereby acquired the prior right to collect the tax. (2) The statute is not unconstitutional. A tax is not a debt, nor in the nature of a debt. It is an impost levied by the government, and, on account of the urgent necessity for the summary collection of taxes, that the government may be preserved. A party has no right to a hearing in court before the collection can be enforced. Carondelet v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125 ; Pierce v. City of Boston, 3 Mete. 520; City of Camden v. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 398; Blackwell on Tax Titles, p. 28, and authorities cited, (a) Our own Supreme Court holds that an assessment is a judicial act, and, if that be true, plaintiff has had his day in court. Railroad v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 481; Insurance Qo. ». Qliarless, 47 Mo. 462; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 479. (5) Besides having the assessor as a judicial officer to pass upon Ms rights, he may, under our statutes, appeal to the board of equalization. (3) The act of 1883 did not authorize the issuance of an execution. It only authorized the issuance of a tax bill, consequently the vicious element of -which the learned counsel complains so loudly exists only in his fertile imagination, and not in the law under discussion. Acts 1883, p. 143. (a) And while the paper delivered to the sheriff of Bates county was in the form of an execution, it had all the requisites of a tax bill. A tax bill is simply a statement of the items of taxes. Rap. and Law; Law Die., vol. 1, p. 128, sec. 1; 1 Bouv. Law Die., p. 174 (Bill of Costs); Webster’s Dictionary. (5) And the command to levy is only what the sheriff is expressly required by law to do, even if it were not contained in the tax bill. Acts 1883, p. 143. (4) The same reasoning that would prove the statute unconstitutional, as to the right to levy in another county, would prove it unconstitutional as to the right to levy in the county in which the levy was made. The tax-book, in both cases, is the collector’s warrant of authority. And while the constitutionality of the statute authorizing a seizure and sale in the county in which the taxes were levied has never been passed upon by this court, the law has been frequently enforced without question. Railroad r. Maguire, 49 Mo. 482; State v. Rowse, 49 Mo. 586; Mayor v. Opel, 49 Mo. 190 ; Ins. Qo. v. Cliarless, supra.