State ex rel. Armstrong v. Rau
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. — Hon. A. J. Seay, Judge. (1) In this case appellant filed an answer to respondent’s amended petition, to which answer respondent declined to reply. Upon the pleadings, then, the judgment should have been for appellant instead of respondent, if appellant’s answer stated facts sufficient to constitute a defence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. — Hon. A. J. Seay, Judge. (1) In this case appellant filed an answer to respondent’s amended petition, to which answer respondent declined to reply. Upon the pleadings, then, the judgment should have been for appellant instead of respondent, if appellant’s answer stated facts sufficient to constitute a defence. R. S., sec. 3525. (2) By the constitution of the state, the annual rate of taxation for school purposes in districts is limited to forty cents on the one hundred-dollar valuation ; provided, that, in districts like this, such annual rate may be…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
This is a suit to collect back taxes for the school-fund tax in favor of district number 3, township number 43, range number 2, for the year 1879. The action is based upon section 6837 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, which provides: “All lands owned by the same person, or persons, may be included in one petition, and in one count thereof, for the taxes for all such years, as taxes may be due thereon, and said petition shall show the different years for which taxes are due, as well as the several kinds of taxes or funds to which they are due, with the respective amounts due to each fund; all…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Jones v. RushSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Nelson v. WallaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Vaughan v. DanielsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Cushing v. PowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Holke v. HermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.