
    THE STATE ex rel. LAFFOON, Collector, v. WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant.
    Division Two,
    December 12, 1905.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: No Bill of Exceptions: Affirmance. In a suit for back taxes, where no bill of exceptions was filed in the trial court, the judgment will he affirmed unless there are errors in the record proper. And if the petition is in the usual and ordinary form in suits for back taxes, and correctly describes the land and alleges that taxes for the different years were regularly assessed and levied, and the judgment of the court is responsive to the allegations of the petition and the relief sought, the record proper is without error.
    Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Ho». W. L. Jarrott, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. 8. Wooldridge for appellant.
    (1) The parties alleged in the petition to have made the assessment and levy of taxes, to-wit, ‘‘the officers and agents of said State, county and township of Camp Branch of said county, ” had no legal power to make such assessment and levy of taxes on the land described in the petition. The allegations of the petition and plaintiff’s theory of the case are that such parties assessed and also made the levy of taxes thereon; and the plaintiff is held to and bound by the allegations and theory of the petition, and can recover on no other theory. Oglesby v. Railroad, 150' Mo. 177; Witascheck v. Glass, 46 Mo. App. 214; Martinowsky v. Hannibal, 35 Mo. App. 79; Fill v. Coal Mining Co., 23 Mo. App. 224; Brooks v. Yocum, 45 Mo. App. 521; Bruce v. Sims, 34 Mo. 351; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 546; Kahn v. Weill, 73 Mo. 213; Whitstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575. (2) Statutes in relation to taxation must be strictly construed and closely pursued. Every essential fact to the exercise of the taxing power must appear in evidence. Corn v. Cameron, 19 Mo. App. 582; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, secs. 573, 582; Durrett v. Stuart, 11 S. W. 773; State ex rel. v. St. Louis County Court, 113 Mo. App. 53, 84 Mo. 234; Noll v. Morgan, 82 Mo. App. 118; Railroad v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300; Blackwell on Tax Titles (2 Ed.), 225; Campbell County v. Taylor, 8 Bush 206 ; Westfall v. Preston, 49 N. Y. 853; Beckwith v. English, 51 111. 147; 3 Washb. Real Property, 223; Allen v. Harnett, 116 Mo. 287; Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 522; Am. Mut. Aid Society v. Helbum, 2 S. W. 495; Welty nn Assessments, sections 275; 282, 299', 321; City of Fort Smith v. Dodson, 11 S. W. 689 ; Lyon v. Alley, 130 U. S. 177. (3) Bill of exceptions presented to the judge of the court for signature, but was not signed or certified by him. R. S. 1899, sec. 729.
    
      D. G. Barnett and Geo. M. Summers for respondent.
    Appellant has filed no bill of exceptions in this case, and therefore, there is nothing for this court to consider but the record proper. As the record proper in this case consists of the petition of the plaintiff, the answer of defendant and the finding and judgment of the court, these are the only things before this court. As the petition is in due and regular and approved form, fully alleging all necessary allegations in a tax suit, and the finding and judgment of the court are against defendant and in favor of the plaintiff on all the issues, we submit that there is nothing for this court to do but to affirm the judgment of the lower court.
    
      J. S. Wooldridge for appellant in reply.
    Plaintiff makes no objections to defendant’s brief in this case on the score of unfaithfulness, inaccuracy or want of conformity to the facts of the case. It is tacitly admitted to be true in its contents and make-up. Respondent’s objections to appellant’s brief go to the extent, that because the judge for some unknown reason, some nndivulged cause, did not sign the proffered bill of exceptions, appellant has no standing in this court. There is at least a record before this court, and upon that record the judgment is erroneous, wherefore, appellant prays its reversal by the court, and for all other proper relief.
   FOX, J.

This case is brought here by appeal from a judgment of the Cass County Circuit Court against the defendant, in the sum of one hundred and seventy-eight dollars and fifty-four cents.

This is a suit for back taxes, and was commenced in March, 1902. At the September term, 1902, plaintiff filed an amended petition, upon which the trial was had. On the 9th day of September, 1902, appellant, J. S. Wooldridge, filed his separate answer to the petition. The cause was tried and submitted to the court upon the evidence introduced, without the aid of a jury. *On the 11th of October, 1902, there was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were duly filed and by the court overruled, and from the judgment rendered the appeal was prosecuted.

An examination of the record before us discloses that no bill of exceptions was filed in this cause preserving the action of the trial court during the progress of the trial; hence the evidence introduced upon the trial of this cause, as well as the action of the court in admitting or excluding such evidence, is not before us for consideration; neither is the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial preserved by bill of exceptions; hence there is nothing before us for review except the record proper.

We are favored by appellant with a full and complete statement of this case, as well as an exhaustive brief upon the subject in hand; yet unless we make this case an exception to the well-settled rules of practice, applicable to appeals, we cannot consider such statement as forming a part of a properly signed bill of exceptions; and we are unwilling to depart from the long and well-established rules of practice upon this subject.

The record in this case is in every way regular. The petition is in the usual and ordinary form in suits for back taxes; the property is correctly described; the levy and assessment of the taxes for the different years is alleged to have been regularly made, and this judgment of the court is responsive to the allegations of the petition and the relief sought. We see no necessity of burdening this opinion with a reproduction of the pleadings.

Were the complaints suggested by appellant properly preserved by bill of exceptions, we would most cheerfully give them such attention and consideration as their importance and the proper administration of justice demand.

Finding no reversible error in the record proper, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All concur.  