Comer v. Folsom

• Decision Date: 01 January 1868
• Citation: 13 Minn. 205
• Parties: WILLIAM COMER, Treasurer, etc., v. WILLIAM H. C. FOLSOM.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

13 Minn. 205

WILLIAM COMER, Treasurer, etc.,

v. WILLIAM H. C. FOLSOM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court, Chisago county.

This controversy was submitted without action to the court below on an agreed statement of facts, and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The facts were in brief these: In 1864 the towns of Taylor's Falls and Amador, in Chisago county, constituted one subdistrict for the purpose of distributing and enforcing the draft for soldiers under the laws of congress. In August of that year, at a town meeting of the town of Taylor's Falls, a resolution was adopted appropriating $6,000 to pay bounties to volunteers to fill the quota of the town, and for the support of families of soldiers

drafted from the town, and recommending the supervisors to issue bonds of the town to that amount for such purposes. No similar appropriation was made by the town of Amador. Bonds of the town of Taylor's Falls, to the amount of $3,950, were issued and used in paying bounties to volunteers who enlisted and were credited to the subdistrict. A tax for the purpose of paying the bonds and interest was levied on property in the town of Taylor's Falls, of which defendant is a resident, his share of the tax being $107.44 on his personal property. Plaintiff is the county treasurer and seeks to collect the tax.

L. R. Cornman and H. J. Horn, for appellant.

H. N. Setzer, for respondent.

WILSON, C. J.

The appellant argues: (1) That this tax was levied to pay bonds issued without legal authority by the town of Taylor's Falls, and which it was not within the power of the legislature to legalize or make valid; (2) that the bonds were issued for money appropriated, in part, for the benefit of the town of Amador. Hence he seeks to draw the conclusion that the tax is illegal. Both of these objections we think untenable.

First. Admitting that at the time of making the bonds the town was not authorized to bind itself in that manner, yet it was within the power of the legislature to ratify and validate such authorized act, as it did. Kunkle v. Town of Franklin, ante, 119.

Secondly. It was competent, we think, for the legislature to give gratuities to those drafted into or voluntarily entering the military service of the United States, or to their families, and to tax the citizens generally therefor; and if it had the power, it had the right to delegate it to the several towns or counties. City of Lowell v....