Chauncey v. Wass

• Decision Date: 14 November 1885
• Citation: 35 Minn. 1,25 N.W. 457
• Parties: CHAUNCEY v WASS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

35 Minn. 1

25 N.W. 457

CHAUNCEYvWASS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed November 14, 1885.

Appeal from an order of the district court, St. Louis county, sustaining demurrer.

P. Ayer, for appellant, Charles Chauncey.

W. W. Billson, for respondent, Cordelia Wass.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Defendant claims title to the land in controversy through a sale on September 19, 1881, under the tax judgment in proceedings that year to enforce the tax of 1880. The plaintiff claims that the judgment was void because the tax for 1880 was paid before its rendition. Does the fact that a tax upon real estate has been paid render a subsequent judgment and sale for the tax void? is the only question in the case. The filing of the delinquent list with the clerk of the court bas “the force and effect of filing a complaint in an action by the county against each piece or parcel of land therein described, to enforce payment of the taxes and penalties therein appearing against it, and shall be deemed the institution of such an action.” Section 70, c. 11, Gen. St. 1878. When the notice required by section 71 has been published in the manner required by section 72, “the notice shall be deemed to have been served, and the court to have acquired full and complete jurisdiction to enforce against each piece or parcel of land in said published list described, the taxes accrued, penalties and costs upon it then delinquent; *** and such jurisdiction shall not be affected by any error in making the list filed with the clerk,” etc. Section 73. The provisions of these sections being complied with, the court bas jurisdiction to try and determine the claim presented, by the filing of the list that the taxes appearing upon it are due from the respective pieces of land against which they appear upon it. By filing the list the county asserts that the taxes are due, and presents the matter for the court to try and determine, and the jurisdiction of the court to try and determine it cannot depend in any degree upon the rightfulness of the claim presented for its adjudication.

That the land is exempt or that the tax has been paid is a defense which must be “made to appear by answer and proofs.” Section 79. This was decided in County of Chisago v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 109, S.C.6 N. W. Rep. 454, a case not distinguishable from this, so far as this point is concerned. The judgment is conclusive of the right to enforce the tax, unless the statute provides some mode of avoiding that effect. Section 85 specifies the only grounds upon which the sale may be set aside or held invalid. That the land was exempt from taxation, or that the tax was paid before judgment, is not among them. A remedy to the owner in such case is afforded by section 80, which declares that the judgment shall be final, except on review by the supreme court; but authorizes the court, before the period of redemption expires, to open or vacate the judgment and permit the party to defend, to the same extent as before judgment, on the ground that the tax has been paid or that the property is not subject to taxation. Certainly down to 1881 there was no provision of statute under which a sale pursuant to the judgment could be attacked on either of these grounds. But it is claimed that section 19, c. 10, Laws 1881, amending section 97, c. 11, Gen. St. 1878, has the effect to abrogate the rule as it existed to that time. Section 97 did not assume to declare the force and effect of the judgment, nor the causes for which the sale might be held invalid, but only to provide for refundment to the purchaser or assignee from the state of the amounts paid by him on the sale or assignment, and for subsequent taxes, penalties, and costs. As the section originally stood, refundment could be made only where there...