County of Martin v. Kampert
| Decision Date | 19 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,106 - (293) |
| Citation | 151 N.W. 897,129 Minn. 151 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF MARTIN v. A. F. KAMPERT and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Martin county to recover $1,679.50 upon defendants' bond to pay expenses in connection with the proposed construction of a public ditch. The case was tried before Quinn, J., who made findings and ordered judgment for the amount demanded. Defendants' motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
County ditch -- disqualification of viewers.
1. The objection that viewers appointed in proceedings to establish a county ditch are disqualified by reason of interest in land which may be affected, cannot be raised for the first time as a defense to an action on a bond to pay expenses, if the proceedings are otherwise according to law.
Bond to pay preliminary expenses -- condition -- collateral attack on decision.
2. The sureties on such a bond contract to pay in the event the county board shall fail to establish the ditch. When that event happens they must respond. The determination of the county board is not open to collateral attack, except on the ground of fraud or collusion or want of jurisdiction. No fraud or collusion is claimed in this case, and the objection to the qualification of the viewers does not go to the jurisdiction of the board. A proper petition duly filed and proper notices is all that is required to vest the board with full jurisdiction.
Albert R. Allen, for appellants.
E. C Dean, County Attorney, and J. E. Palmer, for respondent.
Upon the filing of a petition for the establishment of a county ditch, defendants executed and filed a bond in the sum of $1,000 conditioned to "pay all expenses, in case the county board of said county, or the court in case an appeal be taken * * * shall fail to establish said proposed public ditch." Some time later they gave a second bond in like amount and with like conditions. The county board considered the petition and appointed an engineer to make the survey. The engineer made and filed his report. Thereupon three viewers who had been appointed entered upon their duties, and later reported that the cost of construction of the drainage system was greater than the total amount of benefits therefrom. On final hearing the county board refused to establish the ditch. No appeal was taken from their action. This action is brought on the bond to recover the expenses incurred.
The only defense urged is that two of the viewers owned land which, it is claimed, was properly within the district to be drained and assessable for benefits, and that they were accordingly interested in the event of the proceeding. There was no charge of fraud, collusion or bad faith, in fact the absence of all such elements was conceded. The trial court found as a fact that neither of the viewers was interested in the construction of such drainage system, and that, if constructed, it would not in any manner affect or benefit any lands owned by either of them. It may be that this finding is sustained by the evidence. We do not intimate that it is not, but in the view we take of this case we do not reach that question.
The statute provides that the viewers shall be "resident freeholders of the county, not interested in the construction of the proposed work, and not of kin to any of the parties known to be interested therein." G.S. 1913, § 5528. It is highly important that all persons officially concerned in a county ditch proceeding shall be persons qualified to act, and particularly that they shall be free from the taint of self interest. But whether the disqualification of viewers is a defense to an action on this bond, is quite another question.
The sureties on this bond contracted that they would pay the expenses for which they are now sued "in case the county board of said county * * * shall fail to establish said proposed public ditch." The event in which they contracted to pay has come to pass. Not having been parties to the proceeding before the county board, its determination would not, in the absence of contract, have been conclusive of their liability. Beauchaine v. McKinnon, 55 Minn. 318, 56 N.W. 1065, 43 Am. Rep. 506. But they have contracted to be bound by the determination of the county board, and for that reason the determination of that body, acting within its jurisdiction and in the absence of fraud or collusion, is conclusive upon them as to "every fact which it would be necessary to find" in order to arrive at their determination. Except in the cases mentioned, it is not open to collateral attack. This is the rule applicable to bonds with similar conditions given in proceedings in court. Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. Bartsch, 51 Minn. 474, 53 N.W. 764, 38 Am. St. 511; Pierce v. Maetzold, 126 Minn. 445, 148 N.W. 302; Firemen's Insurance Co. v. McMillan, 29 Ala. 147; McConnell v. Poor, 113 Iowa 133, 84 N.W. 968, 52 L.R.A. 312; Ballantine & Sons v. Fenn, 84 Vt. 117, 78 A. 713, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 698. The same rule applies to a bond given in such proceedings as these before a county board. The board acts in a capacity quasi judicial. Its determination, within the limits of its jurisdiction, is equally conclusive with that of a court. Oxborough v. Boesser, 30 Minn. 1, 13 N.W. 906. Bigelow, Estoppel (6th ed.), p. 72. One not a party who contracts to be bound by the decision of a court or other tribunal is bound by the decision as effectually as a party is bound, and he can attack the decision in a collateral action only in the case in which a party may attack it collaterally, that is, on the ground of fraud, collusion or want of jurisdiction.
There being no claim of fraud or collusion, these defendants can attack the validity of the determination of the county board only on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Irregularities that do not go to the jurisdiction of the board can be urged only in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial