County of Chisago v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 24 August 1880 |
| Citation | 6 N.W. 454,27 Minn. 109 |
| Parties | County of Chisago v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Chisago county, Crosby, J., presiding, opening certain tax judgments and giving defendant leave to answer.
Order reversed.
H. N Setzer, for appellant.
James Smith, Jr., for respondent.
After the entry of tax judgments against certain lands, and the sale of the lands, the same being bid in for the state, and the expiration of the time to redeem, the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, claiming to own the lands, made an application for an order opening the judgment, and granting leave to answer and defend. The only ground for the application was that the lands were exempt from taxation. The order was granted, and from that order the appeal is brought.
The objection is made that the order is not appealable, because the proceeding to enforce payment of taxes upon real estate is not an action, and therefore the provisions of Gen. St 1878, c. 86, § 8, relating to appeals to this court, do not apply. The proceeding is not an ordinary action, and all the proceedings, from the filing of the list of the entry of judgment, including the mode of review of the decisions of the court below, up to the entry of judgment, are specially regulated by the statute. Yet it is an action. Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 70, which prescribes how the proceedings shall be commenced, says: "The filing of such list shall have 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 action, and the same shall operate as notice of the pendency of such action."
As the statute regulating the proceeding does not point out any way to review orders made after the judgment, we think the provisions of chapter 86, § 8, apply, and give the right of appeal where they give it in case of similar orders in any other action. Com'rs of Aitkin Co. v Morrison, 25 Minn. 295. An order setting aside a judgment, upon an application addressed to the discretion of the court, will not be reviewed unless there is an abuse of discretion. But if the order determines the strict legal rights of the parties, as distinguished from those mere questions of practice which every court regulates for itself, and those matters depending on the discretion or favor of the court, it involves the merits of the action, within the meaning of the third subdivision of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial