Duluth v. Norton

Decision Date24 January 1896
Citation65 N.W. 935,63 Minn. 497
PartiesVILLAGE OF WEST DULUTH v. NORTON ET AL.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Gen. St. 1894, § 1337, authorizes certain municipal corporations to levy assessments for local improvements upon the property fronting upon such improvements, or upon the property to be benefited by such improvements, without regard to cash valuation. Pursuant to this power, the municipal authorities of the village of West Duluth levied an assessment against certain property therein situate, for the purpose of making improvements, and gave due notice of the time and place when such assessment would be confirmed, and also that it was proposed to issue bonds, chargeable to the real estate to be benefited by such improvement, to pay such assessment, and that the property owners affected by such assessment might then and there appear and file their objections thereto. None of them filed objections, nor did they appeal from such confirmation to the district court, as provided by law. Gen. St. 1894, § 1343, reads, in part: “At the time and place mentioned in such notice, or at such time and place as they may adjourn to, said village council shall meet and review and confirm such assessment, which confirmation shall be final, except as hereinafter provided. And no omission, informality or irregularity in or preliminary to the making of any special assessment for any local improvement shall, after such confirmation, affect the validity of such assessment, unless objection specifying the ground thereof shall have been made in writing and duly filed with the village recorder on or before the date of such confirmation.” Gen. St. 1894, § 1346, reads as follows: “No action shall be maintained to avoid any of the special assessments of taxes levied pursuant to this chapter after bonds have been issued covering such special assessments, and said bonds shall be conclusive proof of all the proceedings on which the same are based.” The bonds covering such assessment were duly issued, and no action was commenced to avoid the assessment. When the county auditor applied for judgment against the property, under Gen. St. 1894, c. 11, more than two years after the issuance of the bonds, the defendants interposed various objections to the validity of the assessment, and to the confirmation thereof. Held that, as the property owners had failed to interpose their objections within the time allowed by law, they were concluded by the proceedings had against them.

2. Held, also, that, in case of the nonpayment of taxes levied by a municipal corporation for the purpose of making improvements, penalties may be added in the same manner, and to the same extent, as in case of nonpayment of taxes levied for general purposes.

Case certified from district court, St. Louis county; Charles L. Lewis, Judge.

Proceeding to enforce payment of taxes levied by the village of West Duluth, in St. Louis county, against Martha H. Norton, executrix, and others. There was a judgment against defendants, and the case was brought up on certificate. Affirmed.

Wm. A. Cant, for plaintiff.

Agatin, Davidson & Carey (Billson, Congdon & Dickinson, of counsel), for defendants.

BUCK, J.

The only question involved in this case is the validity of an assessment made by the village of West Duluth for the improvement of Fourth avenue in said village, which was organized under and by virtue of the provisions of chapter 146, Gen. Laws 1891; being the same as Gen. St. 1894, §§ 1276-1424, inclusive. This village became a part of the city of Duluth on the 1st day of January, 1894. The objections raised by the defendants go to the validity of certain special assessments for local improvements levied during the year 1892 against the land or lots involved in this controversy. Such special assessments were levied by the village pursuant to the provisions of subchapter 9 of chapter 146, Gen. Laws 1891, being the same as Gen. St. 1894, §§ 1337-1353, inclusive. The village council confirmed the assessment on the 25th day of July, 1892. When the county auditor applied for judgment against lots, under Gen. St. 1894, c. 11, the defendant interposed various objections to the validity of the assessments in question, and also to the confirmation thereof. After a hearing the matter was decided against the defendants, and thereafter the case was certified to this court, pursuant to Gen. St. 1894, § 1589.

One of the findings of fact by the trial court is as follows: “That some of the lots of the defendant Norton, especially those situated in block 56, West Duluth, Sixth division, and upon which the assessment for the improvement of the said Fourth avenue was made at the rate of $162.45 per lot, were not worth in the market, at the time said assessmentwas levied, more than the sum of $150 per lot, and that the market value of said lots at the time of the said assessment did not exceed the sum of $150 per lot, and that said assessment on each lot exceeded in amount the value of each lot, and that the market value of the said lot after the assessment was made and improvement completed did not exceed the sum of $150 per lot, and was not enhanced by reason of said improvement.” There are several objections raised and argued by the counsel for the defendants, challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings, all of which, or at least the most of them, might be disposed of upon the ground that the defendants did not appear and raise the objection at the proper time and place,-a matter which will be alluded to further on in this opinion. One of the defendants' objections is that the published notice of the confirmation of the assessment did not describe the property, and that, consequently, the council had no power to confirm the assessment. The notice was headed Village of West Duluth,” and it gave notice that a contract had been let for sidewalk, curbing, and paving on Fourth avenue west, in the village of West Duluth, St. Louis county, Minn., between State street and Seventh street south, in said village; that the expense...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Blackwell v. Village of Coeur d'Alene
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1907
    ... ... the board, that owner is precluded from afterward questioning ... or attacking the validity of the said bonds when issued ... ( State v. Norton, 63 Minn. 497, 65 N.W. 935; ... Pierson v. People, 204 Ill. 456, 68 N.E. 383; ... New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co. 16 Wash. 137, ... 47 ... ...
  • Tri-County Highway Improv. Dist. v. Vincennes Bridge Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1925
    ... ... Page 634 ... Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) vol. 2, pp. 900, 1030 ...         In this connection it may be stated that in State v. Norton, 63 Minn. 497, 65 N. W. 935, it was held that penalties the same as in the case of nonpayment of taxes levied for general purposes may be added in ... ...
  • Tri-County Highway Improvement District v. Vincennes Bridge Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1925
    ... ... 2, pp. 900 and 1030 ...          In this ... connection it may be stated that in State v ... Norton, 63 Minn. 497, 65 N.W. 935, it was held that ... penalties the same as in the case of nonpayment of taxes ... levied for general purposes, may be ... ...
  • Moore v. City of Yonkers
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 18, 1916
    ... ... 273; Morse v. Omaha, 67 Neb. 426, 93 N.W ... 734; Wilkinson v. Trenton, 35 N.J.Law, 485, affirmed ... 36 N.J.Law, 499; State v. Norton, 63 Minn. 497, 65 ... N.W. 935 ... In ... Brown v. Grand Rapids, 83 Mich. 103, 47 N.W. 117 ... (1890) a bill was filed to remove a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT