Chouteau v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 22 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 173,46 N.W. 341
• Parties: CHOUTEAU ET AL. v HUNT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 173

46 N.W. 341

CHOUTEAU ET AL.vHUNT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 22, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In a list of taxes delinquent for the year 1873, published as required by section 112, c. 1, Gen. Laws 1874, in the column of said list headed “Amt.,” and opposite a description of the town lot herein involved, appeared figures, thus, “7 03.” Held, that these figures clearly indicated the amount of tax claimed against said lot as $7.03.

2. The affidavit of the county auditor, which must be returned with the delinquent list to the clerk of the court, as provided by section 110, c. 1, Id., is no part of the list, and need not be published with it.

3. It is immaterial whether the notice prescribed in section 111 of said chapter 1 precedes or follows the list proper, if it be attached to it when published.

4. The list in this case was published on the 1st, 8th, and 15th days of August, and the judgment was entered, for want of answer, on September 1st, before the expiration of 20 days from the last publication. Held that, while an irregular entry of judgment, and liable to be set aside upon proper and seasonable application, the judgment was not void nor vulnerable to collateral attack.

5. Under the proper heading in the judgment, the premises in dispute were described as in the Second ward, town of St. Anthony. It appeared from the complaint and from the deeds under which plaintiffs claimed that the premises were in a platted tract of land known and named in the recorded plat as the “Town of St. Anthony.” Held, that the general description was sufficient.

6. The particular description of the premises, as found in columns on the right of that containing the general description in columns headed “Sec. or Lot” and “Township or Block,” held sufficiently definite and certain in the judgment.

7. Other objections to the tax proceedings under which respondent claims title, considered and disposed of.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HICKS, Judge.

Paige & Hastings, for appellants.

Gilfillan, Belden & Willard, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

The respondent in this action attempted to establish his title to the lot in question, through certain tax proceedings, judgments, and sales. One of the latter, and which we shall alone consider, is the sale made in Hennepin county upon a judgment rendered September 1, 1874, for the taxes of 1873; the same judgment and sale so fully considered in Bonham v. Weymouth, 39 Minn. 92,38 N. W. Rep. 805. Several objections were raised upon the trial, the first being, as in the Bonham Case, in subdivision numbered 3, that there was nothing in the column headed “Amt.” in the published list, as it appeared in the newspaper, to indicate with reasonable certainty what the figures were intended to signify. This case is clearly distinguishable from the one just referred to. There, but two figures were found opposite the respective descriptions in the column headed “Amt.,” viz., “26” and “27,” and the court held that there was nothing to indicate whether, in so using these two figures, dollars, cents, or something else was meant. In this case, in the column headed “Amt,” in the published list, under that heading and opposite a description of the lot herein involved, appeared figures, thus, “7 03.” The wide space between the figure 7 at the left and the two figures upon the right clearly indicated that $7.03 was intended as the amount of the tax. Any one of ordinary intelligence would understand this list as stating the amount of the tax against this lot to be the sum of $7.03. If this would have been the natural conclusion with the man of ordinary mind, the object of the publication was accomplished, and the notice all that was required. Bonham v. Weymouth, supra; Collins v. Welch, 38 Minn. 62,35 N. W. Rep. 566.

Several objections were urged against the published list as not being a copy of that filed with the clerk, but neither of these objections have any merit. As published, the list clearly advised all who had occasion to examine it that it was a list of taxes remaining delinquent, upon the several parcels of land mentioned, for the year 1873. Although the words “Name of Owner” were omitted from the caption, one would have to be somewhat dull not to understand that the name opposite...