Albrecht v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 21 December 1891
• Citation: 47 Minn. 531
• Parties: E. ALBRECHT and others <I>vs.</I> CITY OF ST. PAUL and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 531

47 Minn. 531

E. ALBRECHT and othersvs.

CITY OF ST. PAUL and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 21, 1891.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Otis, J., presiding, denying their motion that a temporary injunction theretofore issued, restraining the defendants from collecting an assessment for a local improvement, be so modified as to allow defendants to apply to the district court for judgment against the property of plaintiffs, described in the complaint, for the amount of the assessment.

Daniel W. Lawler and Hermon W. Phillips, for appellants.

F. W. Root and John W. White, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

This is an action brought by a great number of plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from collecting an assessment for a local improvement under the charter of the city. The assessment proceedings appear to have reached the point where the city treasurer files the assessment warrant in the district court, and makes application thereon for judgment against each parcel of land assessed. The proceeding in the district court is in the nature of a suit against the property to enforce payment of the amount assessed upon it, in which the owner may avail himself as a defence of any irregularity in any of the proceedings prior to commencing the suit by filing the warrant, which the charter makes essential to the validity of those proceedings. In such proceeding or suit the validity of the assessment is in issue, as much as it could be in any action. The property owner may make any proper objection to its validity, whether the objection go to the authority of the council to order the improvement, or to the authority of the board of public works to have the work done, or go to show that the assessment ought not to have been confirmed. State v. Board of Public Works of St. Paul, 27 Minn. 442, (8 N. W. Rep. 161.) Of course such omissions or irregularities as by the provisions of the charter do not affect the validity of the assessment cannot be made subjects of objection in the proceeding in the district court. Nor could they be held to affect the validity of the assessment in any action or proceeding. That the assessment cannot be enforced without giving the property owner full and adequate opportunity to defend this court has uniformly considered a sufficient reason for refusing the writ of certiorari to bring here for review the proceedings of the council and board. Dousman v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 387; State v. Board of Public Works of St. Paul, 27 Minn. 442, (8 N. W. Rep. 161.) The same consideration is a sufficient reason why a suit will not lie to enjoin the city from instituting and prosecuting the proceeding to enforce the assessment. Such an injunction would be in effect against the city bringing an action or suit in which the persons made defendants have a full and adequate opportunity to make their defence to the claim made against their property. A suit to enjoin a party from bringing an action in which the party to be sued may make his defence as completely as in the suit for the injunction never would lie, unless under exceptional circumstances, such as do not exist in this case. In Minn. Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20 Minn. 424, (468,) and Sewall v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 459, (511,) actions to clear off the cloud on the title created by assessments for local improvements and for injunction against enforcing such proceedings were sustained.

But in the assessment proceedings in those cases, there was no...