State ex rel. Hagerman v. St. Louis & East St. Louis Electric Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. Kinsey, Judge. (1) The tax bill is not legal evidence in this case, because (a) not authenticated by certificates of the collector or filed with the petition as required by law. B. S. 1899, sec. 9303; State ex rel. v. Scott, 96 Mo. 75; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 102 Mo. 664. (b) It is not baed on a valid assessment. State ex rel. v. Cunningham, 153 Mo. 642; Oort v. City of Cameron, 19 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. Kinsey, Judge. (1) The tax bill is not legal evidence in this case, because (a) not authenticated by certificates of the collector or filed with the petition as required by law. B. S. 1899, sec. 9303; State ex rel. v. Scott, 96 Mo. 75; State ex rel. v. Phillips, 102 Mo. 664. (b) It is not baed on a valid assessment. State ex rel. v. Cunningham, 153 Mo. 642; Oort v. City of Cameron, 19 Mo. App. 585. (2) The allegation of the petition “that defendant owned, on June 1, 1906, 346 miles of roadbed and superstructure rolling stock and ‘all other…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
This is a suit by the Collector of the City of St. Louis for taxes for the year 1907, assessed by the State Board of Equalization against .364 of a mile of railroad, owned and operated by the defendant corporation in the City of St. Louis.
The case was submitted to the trial judge, a jury being waived, upon an agreed statement of facts. The finding and judgment of the court were rendered in favor of the plaintiff for taxes and interest in the sura of $8356.19, to which was added one thousand dollars attorneys’ fee, allowéd and taxed as costs. Defendant duly appealed.
The agreed statement of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State AuditorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Fargo v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Adams Express Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- MacHt v. Department of AssessmentsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Franke v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1972
- State Ex Rel. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. DanuserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- City of Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Building Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
- MacHt v. Department of AssessmentsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972