Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-09-16
Tax Cases Before Justices of the Peace

4oA SdcSo DCAOA . OuSeASOS VA tAC l. CaCCs
We have frequently been requested
TO publish the Supreme Court decision
affecting titles to real estate under the
tax-law, where the judgments against
lands delinquent for taxes were taken
before justices of the peace.
The opinion has not been published.
It is yoluminous, covering seventeen
closely written legal cap pages, and
was delivered at the April term, 1884.
The style of the case is Estate e1 rel.
Gordon, Respondent, vs. John r. Hop
kins, ct at, Appellants" and came
from st. Clair county. Below we copy
from the decision the main reasons for
reversing the court below:
SIT is claimed by the Attorney General
that jurisdiction in such cases is given to
Justices of the Peace by section 1886 Reyis-
ed Statutes. This section was enacted in
| 1879 as an amendment to section 4, Acts of
1877, p. 3S6, which latter section is as fol-
| lows:
SEC. 6S36. Enforcement of payment of
| td1es by suit, etc.-If, on the first day of JAN
| uary, 1873 1901, any of said lands or town lots
| contained in said "back tax book" remain
| urredeemed, it shall be the duty of the COL
| lector to proceed TO enforce the payment of
| the taxes charged against such tract or
| lot, by suit i'm the courts of competent juris-
| diction of the county where the real estate is
| situated, which said courts shall have juris-
diction without regard to the amount sued
| on, to enforce the hen of the State or such
cities; and for the purpose of prosecuting
| suits for taxes under this act, the collector
shall have power, with the approval of the
county court, or i'll such cities, the mayor
thereof, to employ such attorneys as he may
deem necessary, who shall receive as fees in
| any suit such sum, not to exceed ten per
cent. of the amount of taxes actually collect.
ed and paid into the treasury, as may be
agreed upon in writing, and approved by the
| county court, or in such cities, the mayor
thereof, before such services are rendered,
which sum shall be taxed as costs in the suit
and collected as other costs, and no such at
tOrney shall receive any fee or compensation
for such services except as in this section
provided: and it shall be the duty of the col
lector when suit shall have been commenced
against any tract of land or town lot on said
| shack tax book" to note opposite said tract
or lot such fact, also against whom suit has
been commenced.
1t is clear to my mind that this section
| neither conferred Jurisdiction upon nor au-
| thorized suits to be brought before justices
of the peace for the enforcement of the
States lien for back taxes. 1t simply au-
| thorized suits to be brought in the courts of
competent Jurisdiction of the county where
the real estate bound for the tax was stu
| ated, in no way comforting upon, enlarging
or resi- ricting the Jurisdiction of such courts,
| otherwise than by providing that they should
| exercise the jurisdiction already possessed
| without regard to the amount involved.
That justices courts were not courts of COM
petent jurisdiction 10 such cases, is manifest
| from the fact that while in the general law
| creating justices of the peace, comforting
| Jurisdiction upon them and authorizing them
| TO hold courts for the purpose of exercising
| the jurisdiction confer red, nothing is to be
found empowering them to hear and deter
mine any cause for the enforcement of lien
against real estate, except in mechanics lien
| cases TO a limit ed extent, but on the contrary
a position prohibition is to be found declar-
| ing that mo justice of the peace shall have
jurisdiction to hear or try any action where
| the tile 20 any lands or tenements shall come
in question and be in issue nor of any
| directly equitable proceedings Section 1887
Revised Statutes.
Thei e is another view
which seems 10 me to be conclusion Of the
question involved. 1t is this: Section 6S37
Rev. Stat. provides, shat all actions COM
menced under the provisions of this chapter
should be prosecuted in the name of the
State of Missouri at the relation of and to
the use of the collector and against the own
er of the property
1t follows l think from this, that IN suits
of this character the title to real estate is in.
volved, because the question as to who is the
owner of the land sought to be .arged with
the tax can only be ascertained ty determine
ing who has the title, and if the question of
title is involved in such cases then Justices of
the peace have no jurisdiction to pass upon
such question for the reason that in Section
1887 Rev. Stat, it is expressly declared that
mo Justice of the peace shall have jurisdic-
ton to hear and try any action VI
where the title to any lands or tenements
shall come in question and be in issue nor of
any strictly equitable proceedings"
Judges Sherwood and Ray concur.
Hough. c. J., absent. Judge Henry
filed dissenting opinion. Judge Black
subsequently concurred in the dissent
ing opinion of Judge Henry.