Cook v. John Schroeder Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1902 |
| Citation | 85 Minn. 374,88 N.W. 971 |
| Parties | COOK v. JOHN SCHROEDER LUMBER CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Lake county; Homer B. Dibell, Judge.
Action by Writ H. Cook against the John Schroeder Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
1. The omission by the county auditor to verify by his affidavit the delinquent tax list filed by him in the office of the clerk of the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court in the premises, nor the validity of the tax judgment.
2. There were no file marks on the delinquent list, but at the time of the trial the list was found in the clerk's office in a wrapper upon which was indorsed these words: This was signed by the clerk. The tax judgment recited that the list had been duly filed. Held, that this indorsement does not prove that the list was not duly filed, nor rebut the recitals of the judgment that it was.
3. The land in the tax judgment was described as ‘N. W. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4 lot 2 & 3,’ of a named section, town, and range: Held, that it was a sufficient description of the S. W. 1/4 of the N. W. 1/4, and lots 2 and 3 of the section.
4. The mere fact that no affidavit of the posting of the notice of a tax sale is found with the files and records of the tax proceedings is not evidence rebutting the recital of the tax certificate that the notice was duly given.
5. If land is offered at a tax sale to the bidder, if any there be, who will pay the amount for which it is to be sold, and bid in by the state in default of other bidders, and a record thereof made, no irregularity in the conduct of the sale will render it invalid. Evidence held to be insufficient to show that the statute was not complied with in making the tax sale in this case.
6. The notices of redemption were sufficient. McNamara v. Fink, 73 N. W. 649, 71 Minn. 66, followed. John G. Williams, for appellant.
John Jenswold, Jr., for respondent.
Action to determine adverse claims to real estate. The defendant claimed title to the land by virtue of a tax title. The land, pursuant to a real-estate tax judgment of the district court of the county of Lake, entered March 21, 1896, for delinquent taxes thereon for the year 1894, was bid in for the state May 4, 1896. The defendant has acquired the title of the state. Judgment was entered in this action for the plaintiff, to the effect that he was the absolute owner of the land. The only question for our decision is whether the defendant's title is valid. The plaintiff, in support of his judgment, urges that the tax title is void for the following reasons:
1. The delinquent list was not verified by the affidavit of the county auditor, as required by Gen. St. 1894, § 1579, which provides that the county auditor ‘shall verify such list by his affidavit that the same is a correct list of taxes delinquent for the year or years therein appearing upon the real estate in said county.’ The county auditor certified under his hand and official seal to the correctness of the list, but the record does not show that he verified the list by his affidavit. Assuming that the list was never verified by the affidavit of the county auditor, it must be and is held, on the authority of Mille Lacs Co. v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 178, that the omission did not affect the jurisdiction of the court, and that the tax title is not invalid for this reason. It was held in that case that if the list is actually filed by the auditor, and the publication prescribed by the statute made, no mistake or error in the proceedings affects the jurisdiction of the court. This decision was followed in Bennett v. Blatz, 44 Minn. 56, 46 N. W. 319. It is difficult to see how any other conclusion could have been reached without a judicial repeal of the statute, which then and now expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the court ‘shall not be in any way affected by any error in making the list filed with the clerk.’ Laws 1874, c. 1, § 113; Gen. St. 1894, §§ 1582, 1588. But were it otherwise, the decision in the case of County of Mille Lacs has become a rule of property, and must be adhered to. Counsel for plaintiff seeks to distinguish that case from this, for the reason that in this case there was an entire absence of any affidavit of the auditor, while in the other there was an affidavit, which was irregular because it had no venue. The decision, however, was not based upon any such distinction, but upon the broad ground we have indicated.
2. The tax judgment was entered March 21, 1896, and recites that the delinquent list was duly filed in the office of the clerk of the court, and the notice and list required by law duly published; the 20th day of March, 1896, having passed, and no answer having been filed. No claim is made in this case that the notice and list required by law were not duly published, but plaintiff claims that the list was not filed in the clerk's office until March 21, 1896,-the day on which the judgment was entered,-and therefore the judgment is void. The short answer to this claim is that there is no evidence in the record to show that the list was not duly filed on or before January 20, 1896; hence it is unnecessary to discuss or decide the question whether the judgment would have been void if the list had not been so filed. It is true that there are no file marks on the list, and also true that at the time of the trial of this action the list, consisting of 14 sheets of paper pinned together, was found in a wrapper tucked in at both ends, and that upon this outside wrapper there was indorsed these words: This is claimed by plaintiff to be proof positive showing when the list was filed; that no other evidence is competent to contradict the file marks, or to show when the list was actually filed, and hence it conclusively appears that the action was not commenced until the day the judgment was rendered. In the absence of a statute to the contrary, if a paper is deposited with the clerk of a court in his office for the purpose of making it a part of the record in any particular action or proceeding, it is filed, although the clerk makes no indorsement upon it. Schulte v. Bank, 34 Minn. 48, 24 N. W. 320;Bogart v. Kiene (Minn.) 88 N. W. 748; 8 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 927. Therefore the absence of file marks on the delinquent list has no tendency to show that it was not duly filed. But stress is laid upon the file marks on the wrapper inclosing the list. If they prove anything, it is that the clerk, when he entered the judgment, assumed that the delinquent list became the judgment roll, and so marked the wrapper, and placed the file marks thereon. However this may be, the indorsement is wholly insufficient to overcome the recitals of the judgment, and the fact that the list and notice were duly published. They could not have been so published unless the clerk delivered in due time a copy of the list then in his office to the auditor.
3. The third objection to the tax judgment is that the tax judgment is void because the description of the land therein is insufficient. The land here in controversy is S. W. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4, lot 2, and lot 3 of section 15, the N. 1/2 of N. E. 1/4 of section 17, and the S. W. 1/4 of S. E. 1/4 of section 33, all in town 59 N., of range 6 W., and was described in the tax judgment as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Number of Acres.¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦Names ¦Description of Tract. ¦Sec.¦Twp. ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦of ¦Subdivision of Section, Lot,¦or ¦or ¦Range.¦--------- ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦Owners.¦or Block. ¦Lot.¦Block.¦ ¦ ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Acres ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦100 ths. ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦ ¦Town 59 North, range 6 W ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦P. M. ¦S. W. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4 ¦15 ¦ ¦ ¦109. 75 ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦Ranney.¦lot 2 & 3. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦“ ¦N. 1/2 of N. E. 1/4 ¦17 ¦ ¦ ¦80 ¦
+-------+----------------------------+----+------+------+----------------¦
¦“ ¦S. W. 1/4 of S. E. 1/4 ¦33 ¦ ¦ ¦40 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The first objection made to this description is that it is uncertain whether the figures 15, 17, and 33 refer to sections or to lots or blocks, because the heading of the column in which they appear is ‘Sec. or Lot.’ The figures in this column, preceded and headed as they are by a designated town and range, clearly refer to the numbers of a section, and not of a lot or block; hence the description is not ambiguous for the reason urged. Bower v. O'Donnall, 29 Minn. 135, 12 N. W. 352;Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173, 46 N. W. 341;Godfrey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 502, 48 N. W. 325;McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 327, 50 N. W. 233. But coun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minn. Debenture Co. v. Scott
...the differences of the statutes affecting the situation in force when that case was decided and the present time. In Cook v. Schroeder Lumber Co., 85 Minn. 374, 88 N. W. 971, the land was not offered for sale by the auditor in the order in which it was described in the judgment, as is requi......
-
Roessler v. Romer
... ... 807; McNamara v. Fink, 71 Minn. 66, 73 N.W. 649; ... Cook v. John Schroeder Lumber Co., 85 Minn. 374, 88 ... N.W. 971; Phelps v ... ...
-
Roessler v. Romer
...tax was not involved. Snyder v. Ingalls, 70 Minn. 16, 72 N. W. 807; McNamara v. Fink, 71 Minn. 66, 73 N. W. 649; Cook v. John Schroeder Lumber Co., 85 Minn. 374, 88 N. W. 971; Phelps v. Powers, In Midland Co. v. Eby, 89 Minn. 27, 93 N. W. 707, the court had in mind the difficulty often expe......
- Cook v. John Schroeder Lumber Company