Austin v. Dickey

2 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Howard Electric Coop. v. Riney

    490 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1973)   Cited 15 times
    Noting that the General Assembly is presumed to know the law, including this Court's prior decisions, in enacting statutes

    Relying upon an earlier decision in State ex rel. Laclede Land Improvement Co. v. State Tax Commission, 295 Mo. 298, 243 S.W. 887, in which it was held that § 10 of Article X of the Constitution of Missouri, 1875, prevented the granting of authority to assess purely local property to the State Tax Commission, the court held that the 1923 act giving the commission authority to assess electric companies and transmission lines should be construed, in order to make it constitutional, as intended by the legislature to "confer upon the tax commission the power of original assessment over only public utilities." 9 S.W.2d 593. The enactment of the federal Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Title 7 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.)

  2. Sierk v. Reynolds

    484 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 12 times
    In Sierk v. Reynolds, 484 S.W.2d 675, the city of Springfield undertook to issue special tax bills to defray the cost of constructing sanitary sewers.

    The provision for interest was authorized by the charter and the ordinance levying the special assessment, and did not constitute a penalty. Austin v. Dickey, 320 Mo. 682, 689, 9 S.W.2d 593, 594 [2] [3] [4]; City of Boonville ex rel. Cosgrove v. Stephens, 238 Mo. 339, 357-358, 141 S.W. 1111, 1117 [12]. Plaintiff's contention that the 5-year statute of limitations applies might be sustained if the special tax bill were founded upon a statute which did not expressly limit the life of the lien of the bill. St. Louis County ex rel. Scott v. Marvin Planing Mill Co., 228 Mo.App. 1048, 1052, 58 S.W.2d 769, 770 [1]; Pleadwell v. Missouri Glass Co., 151 Mo.App. 51, 63-64, 131 S.W. 941, 945; Turner v. Burns, 42 Mo.App. 94, 96 [1]. The duration of the lien of a special tax bill and the manner of enforcing that lien are, however, matters which may be regulated by charter provision and the charter provision will be regarded as controlling provided it is specific and not directly in conflict with some general statute regulating the same subject. Schwab v. City of St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116, 142, 274 S.W. 1058, 1066 [13] [14]; Stanton v. Thompson, 234 Mo. 7, 11, 136 S.W. 698, 699; Pleadwell v.