Ass's v. Bd. of Com'rs of Ramsey Cnty.
Decision Date | 29 June 1906 |
Parties | OAKLAND CEMETERY ASS'S v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY.<SUP>*</SUP> |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Olin B. Lewis, Judge.
Action by the Oakland Cemetery Association against the board of commissioners of Ramsey county. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
When recovery is allowed for taxes paid under protest, the element of coercion must be found. In the absence of present and potential compulsion, mere protest is not sufficient. In this case the payment was held not to have been voluntary, but under duress.
One who by force of the statute is unable to place on record a deed of conveyance by which he has acquired title to real estate, because of taxes legal in their inception, but illegally demanded, may pay such taxes under protest to enable him to record his deed, and recover them in a subsequent action from the state. In this case, the remedy pursued by a party paying taxes under duress and with protest is held to have been proper.
A tax title based on a later tax sale on an earlier tax lien may prevail over a tax title based on an earlier sale under a later lien. The purchaser of a tax certificate under chapter 11, Gen. St. 1878, and chapter 11, Gen. St. 1894, may be required to protect his interest, not only as against subsequent taxes, but also as against prior taxes. The relevant parts of section 1610, 1631, and 1697, Gen. St. 1894, authorized the state to proceed and enforce the lien of a tax delinquent and unpaid subsequently to a prior sale on a later lien. State v. Kipp, 82 N. W. 1114, 80 Minn. 119, followed and extended.
The holder of a valid state assignment certificate, based on a sale for the taxes of 1896 made in 1898, which was properly perfected by service of notice to eliminate the right of redemption, acquires a title upon the expiration of the time of redemption, subject to being divested by a tax title based on prior taxes for 1892, resulting in a void judgment in 1894, on which a forfeited sale was made in 1900 under chapter 322, p. 410, of the Laws of 1899. William G. White, for appellant.
T. R. Kane and O. H. O'Neill, for respondent.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff and appellant against the defendant and respondent to recover certain taxes alleged to have been paid under duress. The court found for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The trial court in a carefully prepared memorandum states the facts and the principal issues argued before it and presented by this appeal, as follows:
1. The preliminary question upon this appeal is the correctness of defendant's argument for not sustaining this appeal, namely: The following necessary facts did not appear, to wit: That the payment of taxes in question was involuntary and made under such circumstances as to constitute duress, and that the taxes were unjust and illegal. It insisted that the property rights of plaintiff were never in jeopardy, because, as the court finds, the plaintiff reserved from the consideration price to be paid his grantor enough to pay the taxes under protest and agreed to account for such sum to his grantor in case of recovery in this action. We think the agreement between the plaintiff and his grantor was immaterial to the present issue. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, what it might do with the money recovered is no concern of public authorities. The agreement between the plaintiff and his grantor was a private one. Neither that agreement nor what might be done under it affected the right of the plaintiff to record his deed. It is undoubted, as the defendant contends, that to warrant a recovery for taxes paid under protest the element of coercion must be found, and that, in the absence of actual, present and potential compulsion payment under protest is not sufficient. But Dickinson, J., in State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 25, 27, 42 N. W. 548,4 L. R. A. 300. It was distinctly held in that case that one who by force of the statute is unable to place on record a deed of conveyance by which he has acquired title to real estate, by reason of illegal taxes being charged upon the land, may pay such taxes in order to secure the recording of his deed, without such payment being deemed voluntary. Therefore there was duress in this case. The last case cited disposes also of defendant's further contention that there could be no recovery unless the taxes were illegal. The general rule is that one paying under duress and with protest ‘money unlawfully demanded’ may recover it again.
2. A further contention of the defendant, which was that, to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it must also appear that the plaintiff or its grantor pursued the ordinary remedies provided by the statute to be relieved from the payment of the so-called illegal tax, is without merit. Falvey v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 76 Minn. 257, 79 N. W. 302, which he cites, does not support his proposition in this case. There the tax alleged to have been paid under duress, and which was paid under protest, was not yet delinquent. No proceedings to enforce its collection had been commenced. Much less had any judgment been rendered against the land. The court refused to permit the party seeking to recover to ignore the remedy given by statute to defend against illegal taxes, and then to recover them by suit. There was, therefore, no compulsion or coercion and the character of the payment was not affected by his protest. In the case at bar the taxes had been delinquent, proceedings to enforce their collection had been commenced, judgment had been rendered, and a sale had been made, when they were paid. The objection of the defendant is not addressed to the failure of the plaintiff to resort to mandamus, nor does this point seem to have been raised in the court below. While that fact would not prevent the present consideration of the question, we are not inclined to decide it, because, inter alia, of the considerations referred to in State v. Weld, 66 Minn. 219, 222, 68 N. W. 1068. That case involved a mandamus to compel the county auditor to indorse ‘Taxes paid and transfer entered’ upon a deed. Judge Buck there said:
3. The essential question on the merits is accordingly presented for consideration. That question is this: Was the purchaser of a tax certificate under the revenue system provided for by chapter 11 of the General Statutes of 1878 and of the General Statutes of 1894 required to protect his interest thereunder as against taxes levied and assessed prior to the year in which the tax under the sale for which he claims title was levied and assessed? In other words, did a tax title based on an earlier sale under a later tax lien prevail over a later tax sale on an earlier lien? On...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hammerstrom v. Toy Nat. Bank of Sioux City, Iowa
... ... Merritt, 152 Mich. 621, 116 N.W. 386; Oakland Cemetery Ass'n v. Ramsey County, 98 Minn. 404, 108 N.W. 857, 109 N.W. 237, 116 Am.St.Rep. 377 ... ...
- Oakland Cemetery Association v. County of Ramsey
- Minn. Debenture Co. v. Scott
- Oakland Cemetery Assn. v. County of Ramsey