This is the great cardinal rule to which all others are incidental and subordinate. De Hart v. School District No. 39, 214 Mo. App. 651; Consolidated School District v. Hackman, 302 Mo. 558; Grier v. Railway, 286 Mo. 523; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 315 Mo. 485; State ex rel. Tadlock v. Moneyham, 212 Mo. App. 573; Grimes v. Reynolds, 94 Mo. App. 576. (2) The word "taxes," used in section 8230, Revised Statutes 1919, being a common word, is, by the command of our statute as well as the decisions of our courts, to be taken in its "plain or ordinary and usual sense."
Authorities are also cited to the effect that clerical errors, errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation, and "inaccuracies" in a statute may be corrected by the courts. State ex rel. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011; State v. Brinkley, 354 Mo. 337, 189 S.W.2d 314, 335; State ex rel. American Mfg. Co. v. Koeln, Banc, 278 Mo. 28, 211 S.W. 31. Such is true, but that power should be sparingly exercised, and then only to effect the intent and purpose of the legislature, — never to change it. The basic difference between the parties here is whether or not this statute constitutes a grant of participating rights to preferred stock, or whether it constitutes a grant to railroad corporations ofthe right to issue preferred stock on terms of their own choosing, with limitations on any right of participation which the corporation might confer.
ucation to exclude property in newly annexed area when calculating the assessed valuation of relator school district); State ex rel. School District of Pattonville v. Lee, 83 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. banc 1935); State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. banc 1933); State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 523 (Mo. banc 1933); and State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 334 Mo. 513, 66 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. banc 1933) (mandamus compelling state superintendent of schools to set moneys aside for special purposes before apportioning state school funds); State ex rel. Robertson v. Lee, 315 Mo. 817, 287 S.W. 37 (Mo. banc 1926) (mandamus compelling distribution to school district of additional state school funds); State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 9 v. Lee, 303 Mo. 641, 262 S.W. 344 (Mo. banc 1924) (mandamus compelling the state superintendent of schools to correct a mistake previously made in apportionment of state school funds); State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 1 v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011 (Mo. banc 1924) (mandamus compelling state auditor to draw warrants upon state treasurer for amounts due in payment of school aid the preceding year); State ex rel. School Directors of District 117 v. School Directors of District 15, 90 Mo. 395, 2 S.W. 420 (Mo. 1886) (mandamus by school district compelling neighboring school district to pay $93 in allegedly misdirected state school funds). I agree with the principal opinion that the Court should look to specific provisions of the constitution.
State ex rel. School District of Pattonville v. Lee, 336 Mo. 1069, 83 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. banc 1935), State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. banc 1933), State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 523 (Mo. banc 1933), and State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 334 Mo. 513, 66 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. banc 1933) (mandamus compelling State Superintendent of Schools to set moneys aside for special purposes before apportioning state school funds); State ex rel. Robertson v. Lee, 315 Mo. 817, 287 S.W. 37 (Mo. banc 1926) (mandamus compelling distribution to school district of additional state school funds); State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 9 v. Lee, 303 Mo. 641, 262 S.W. 344 (Mo. banc 1924) (mandamus compelling the State Superintendent of Schools to correct a mistake previously made in apportionment of state school funds); State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 1 v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011 (Mo. banc 1924) (mandamus compelling state auditor to draw warrants upon state treasurer for amounts due in payment of school aid the preceding year); State ex rel. School Directors of District 117 v. School Directors of District 15, 90 Mo. 395, 2 S.W. 420 (Mo. 1886) (mandamus by school district compelling neighboring school district to pay $93 in allegedly misdirected state school funds. Direct predecessors to the present §§ 163.081 and 163.031 existed in the 1800's.
ew International Dictionary (2 Ed.), defining "receive;" Harvey v. Blue Oak Hdw. Co., 279 S.W. 155; In re McCullough, 74 P.2d 877, 114 A.L.R. 1302; Labarthe v. McRae, 97 P.2d 251; Reese v. State, 73 Ala. 18; Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 13 S.W.2d 628; Texas Co. v. Wilkerson, 21 F. Supp. 771; State of Alabama v. King and Boozer, 62 Sup. Ct. 43; Curry v. United States, 62 Sup. Ct. 48. (2) Respondent did not handle the gasoline. Sec. 8437, R.S. 1939; Webster's New International Dictionary (2 Ed.), defining "handled;" Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, defining "handled;" Scottish-American Mortgage Co. v. Massie, 60 S.W. 544; Adams Fish Market v. Sterett, 172 S.W. 1109; State ex rel. McAllister v. Dunn, 277 Mo. 30, 209 S.W. 110; Webster's New International Dictionary (2 Ed.), defining "manufacture" and "compound;" Fowne's Elementary Chemistry — by Watts, p. 27; State ex rel. Bess v. Schult, 143 S.W.2d 486; State ex rel. Tadlock v. Mooneyham, 212 Mo. App. 573, 253 S.W. 1098; State ex rel. Consolidated School Dist. v. Hackman, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011. (3) The receiving or handling must be within this State. Sec. 8437, R.S. 1939; Porto Rico Ry., L. P. Co. v. Mor, 252 U.S. 345, 64 L.Ed. 944; In re Hall's Estate, 337 Mo. 771, 85 S.W.2d 621. (4) The administrative construction is entitled to great weight. Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 326 Mo. 435, 32 S.W.2d 281; Huntsville Trust Co. v. Noel, 12 S.W.2d 64; Williams v. Williams, 325 Mo. 963, 30 S.W.2d 69; In re Bernay's Estate, 344 Mo. 135, 126 S.W.2d 209; Secs. 8413, 8437, R.S. 1939. (5) That portion of the statute under construction is one granting a partial exemption from taxation, and must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and in favor of the State. Secs. 8413, 8423, 8437, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. Spillars v. Johnston, 214 Mo. 656, 113 S.W. 1083; State ex rel. St. Louis Y.M.C.A. v. Gehner, 320 Mo. 1172, 11 S.W.2d 30. (d) Respondent not receiving or handling the gasoline within this State is not entitled to take the three per cent deduction, but must compute and pay
(1) Statutes must be construed so as to effectuate rather than defeat the evident purpose and intent of the Legislature. State v. Hackman, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011. In imposing the tax under Sections 5979 and 5980, the Legislature exercised its power to impose a privilege or occupation tax on foreign insurance companies.
The court erred in refusing appellant's requested declarations of law No. I and No. II, and in finding for defendant, because said declarations properly set forth that if the court found the facts to be that defendant was a licensed distributor during the months in question and purchased during said months a certain number of gallons of motor vehicle fuel from another licensed distributor, paying the tax on said fuel to this other distributor, and that the other distributor did not remit said tax to the plaintiff, that defendant sold the motor vehicle fuel so purchased in this State, then the judgment will be for the plaintiff. Sec. 7793, Laws 1933-34, p. 101; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 258 S.W. 1011, 302 Mo. 558; State ex rel. v. Mooneyham, 253 S.W. 1098, 212 Mo. App. 573; Secs. 7794, 7795, 7796, 7814, 7822, 7824, R.S. 1929; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 212, 80 S.W. 332; State v. Schwartzman, Inc., 40 S.W.2d 479, 225 Mo. App. 577; State ex rel. v. Krueger, 280 Mo. 310, 217 S.W. 310; DePaige v. Douglass, 234 Mo. 89, 136 S.W. 345; In re Estate of Clark, 270 Mo. 362, 194 S.W. 54. Russell Garnett for respondent.
Matters erroneously included will be eliminated, Ilg Electric Ventilating Co. v. Conner, 172 Minn. 424, 215 N.W. 675; State v. Robinson, 32 Or. 43, 48 P. 357; McLendon v. City of Columbia, 101 S.C. 48, 85 S.E. 234, 5 A.L.R. 990, and note, and erroneous references will be corrected by the court. Billings v. Board of Co. Commrs. 78 Minn. 9, 80 N.W. 777; City of Winona v. Whipple, supra; State v. Cross, 44 W. Va. 315, 29 S.E. 527; Consolidated School Dist. v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011; Worthington v. District Court, 37 Nev. 212, 142 P. 230, L.R.A. 1916A, 696, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 1097; Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26, 165 P. 835, 14 A.L.R. 269. We have not given any weight to the fact that H. F. 1378 failed to become a law because of the governor's veto.
Sec. 1018, R.S. 1929; King's Lake Drainage Levee Dist. v. Jamison, 176 Mo. 565, 75 S.W. 679; Dahlin v. Mo. Comm. for the Blind, 262 S.W. 421; In re Campbell, 323 Mo. 757, 79 S.W.2d 754. (4) It was not the intention of the Legislature to deny an appeal to any party aggrieved by a circuit court judgment. Secs. 5234, 5237, R.S. 1929; Curtin v. Zerbst Pharmacal Co., 333 Mo. 346, 62 S.W.2d 772; State ex rel. Consolidated School Dist. v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011; Perry v. Strawbridge, 209 Mo. 639, 108 S.W. 641; Bowers v. Mo. Mut. Assn., 333 Mo. 492, 62 S.W.2d 1063; Keeney v. McVoy, 206 Mo. 68, 103 S.W. 946; Stack v. Genl. Baking Co., 283 Mo. 396, 223 S.W. 94; Sec. 5263, R.S. 1929. (5) The Kansas City Court of Appeals erred in construing the next to the last sentence in Section 5234, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6662), as though it stood alone. When construed together with pertinent parts of Section 5237, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6666), as previously construed by the Supreme Court, the clear meaning is that appeals are allowed in all cases before the Public Service Commission according to the jurisdiction of appellate courts as fixed by the Constitution.
Mere verbal inaccuracies, or clerical errors in statutes in the use of words, or numbers, or in grammar, spelling or punctuation, will be corrected by the court whenever necessary to carry out the intention of the Legislature as gathered from the entire act. State ex rel. Consolidated School District v. Hackmann, 258 S.W. 1011. (5) Where a statute is prohibitory in its nature and forbids the doing of a certain act unless certain conditions precedent are complied with, such conditions are concurrent, and if through loose or inaccurate phraseology they are connected by the word "or" the word "or" should be read "nor" or "and" unless the clear, unmistakable and unequivocal intention of the Legislature is otherwise. United States v. Fiske, 70 U.S. 445, 18 L.Ed. 243; Lewis's Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), par. 377, 380, 397; Rice v. Ashland County, 108 Wis. 189, 84 N.W. 189; Witherspoon v. Jernigan, 76 S.W. 445; Maylone v. City of St. Paul, 42 N.W. 88; Weston v. Layhed, 14 N.W. 892; Murray v. Keyes, 36 Pa. 384; Foster v. Commonwealth, 8 Watts S. 77; Canne v. Railroad, 23 N.W. 856; McConkey v. Superior Ct., 56 Cal. 83, Standard Co. v. Atty. Gen., 46 N.J. Eq. 270, 19 A. 753. According to the rule established by the above authorities, Sec. 11258 of the Act of 1925, Laws 1925, p. 331, which is the se