Le Duc v. City of Hastings

• Decision Date: 03 July 1888
• Citation: 39 Minn. 110,38 N.W. 803
• Parties: LE DUC v CITY OF HASTINGS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

39 Minn. 110

38 N.W. 803

LE DUCvCITY OF HASTINGS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Sections 1, 3, art. 9, of the constitution of the state, render it imperative that all property, of which exemption is not permitted, shall be taxed, and preclude any other exemptions than those specified in section 3.

An exemption not permitted by the constitution cannot be effected by indirection, by releasing or refunding the taxes after they have been levied.

Chapter 3, Gen. Laws 1866, as amended by chapter 49, Gen. Laws 1867, held unconstitutional, as being an attempt, by evasion, to exempt from taxation property of certain classes of persons which does not fall within any of the exemptions allowed by the constitution.

Appeal from district court, Dakota county; CROSBY, Judge.

Action by Mary E. Le Duc against the city of Hastings to recover double the amount of certain taxes levied for the years 1863, 1864, 1865, and 1866, to pay bounties to volunteers, as provided by statute. Plaintiff had judgment below, and the city appeals.

McNeil V. Seymour, for appellant.

Hodgson & Schaller, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This action was brought under chapter 3, Gen. Laws 1866, as amended by chapter 49, Gen. Laws 1867, and chapter 65, Gen. Laws 1887. Section 1 makes it the duty of the authorities of any county, city, or town, in which any tax has been levied for the purpose of paying bounties to volunteers, upon the property of any citizen of the state, who on or before January 1, 1864, entered the military service of the United States, and has been honorably discharged or resigned or still remains in such service, or upon the property of the wife, widow, or minor children of such person, upon due proof of such facts, to issue to any such person an order upon the treasurer of such county, city, or town for the amount of such taxes, including charges and interest, and requires the treasurer upon whom the order is drawn to receive the same in payment of any taxes due or that may become due. Section 2 provides that, if such authorities refuse to issue the order, the county, city, or town shall be liable in an action to the party aggrieved for twice the amount. In March, 1887, the plaintiff, the wife of W. G. Le Duc, a citizen of this state, who entered the military service of the United States in April, 1862, and was honorably discharged, presented to the city council of Hastings due proof of the facts required by the act, and demanded an order on the city treasurer for the amount of bounty taxes levied on her property in that city for the years of 1863, 1864, 1865, and 1866, with interest and charges. The council having refused to issue the order, she brought this action under the second section of the act to recover double the amount. The defendant disputes plaintiff's right of recovery on the ground (1) that her cause of action is barred by the statute of limitation; (2) that the act is, for several reasons, unconstitutional and void. Most of the points urged we find it unnecessary to consider. The act in question is manifestly unconstitutional,...