Canosia Tp. v. Grand Lake Tp.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1900
• Parties: CANOSIA TP. v. GRAND LAKE TP. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

80 Minn. 357

83 N.W. 346

CANOSIA TP.

v.GRAND LAKE TP. et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 5, 1900.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; S. H. Moer, Judge.

Action by the township of Canosia against the township of Grand Lake and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant township of Grand Lake appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where one town is set off from another pursuant to the provisions of chapter 227. Laws 1895, the new town is not released or discharged from the payment of a debt evidenced by bonds issued prior to the separation. By express provision of the statute such town remains liable for payment. The debt is therefore the joint debt of both towns.

2. ‘Contribution’ is defined as a payment made by each, or by any, of several having a common interest of liability of his share in the loss suffered, or in the money necessarily paid by one of the parties in behalf of the others. It is well settled, for the purposes of an action to recover a proportion of the debt, whether at law or in equity, that the right of one is regarded as maturing when he has paid more than his share of the debt, and until that time there is neither equitable obligation nor implied contract to make contribution.

3. Where payment of the debt has not been made by the town issuing the bonds, it has no right to recover a money judgment against the town which has been set off, for its proportionate share of the entire indebtedness. Phelps & McManus, for appellant.

Fryberger & Johanson, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

The plaintiff township of Canosia, the defendant township of Grand Lake, and the defendant township of Dinham comprised a single statutory township in the year 1892, under the name of Canosia. Grand Lake was set off from Canosia in November, 1895, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 227 of the Laws of that year. Dinham was also set off, but after the commencement of this action, and prior to the time of the trial, the organization of that town was dissolved by proceedings in district court, and it thereupon again became, and still remains, a part of the plaintiff township. The other defendants named in the complaint are alleged to be the owners of the bonds hereinafter mentioned. They are nonresidents, and were never served with summons in this action, nor did they appear therein. In 1892 the plaintiff town issued its bridge bonds, ten in number, each being in the sum of $1,000. Two have been paid by the plaintiff,-one in the year 1895, after the setting apart and organization of the town of Grand Lake; the other in the year 1897. The court below found the proportionate share of said bonded indebtedness of the town of Grand Lake, and ordered judgment for the amount so found in favor of the plaintiff, and against said defendant Grand Lake. This appeal is from the judgment entered in accordance with said order.

Under the provisions of section 3 of chapter 227, supra, the defendant town was not released or discharged from the payment of the debt evidenced by these bonds when it was set off and organized under the name of Grand Lake, but it remained liable for such payment. The language of the statute is plain and explicit on this point. The bonds are therefore the joint debt of these two towns. Or, possibly, Canosia is the principal debtor, and Grand Lake the surety. This is not very material, however, for the question in this case is whether the judgment entered can be sustained upon the facts found. We are unable to sustain it either on principle or authority. If the towns are joint debtors, or if plaintiff is the principal debtor and defendant a surety, the town of Canosia cannot recover or enforce a money judgment except upon the doctrine of contribution. ‘Contribution’ is defined as a payment made by each, or by any, of several having a common interest of liability of his...