Gould v. Grout (In re Gould)

• Decision Date: 11 March 1910
• Citation: 125 N.W. 273,110 Minn. 324
• Parties: In re GOULD. GOULD v. GROUT et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

110 Minn. 324

125 N.W. 273

In re GOULD.GOULD

v.GROUT et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 11, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Olin B. Lewis, Judge.

Application of Thomas Gould to register title to real estate in Ramsey county. William G. Grout and others were made defendants. From a finding that applicant was the owner, subject to a certain tax sale, applicant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff initiated proceedings to register title to certain lands, his ownership of which was based upon forfeited tax deeds pursuant to a sale in 1907. The defendant city of St. Paul held certain local assessment certificates, the lien of which attached prior to sale to plaintiff. Chapter 200, Gen. Laws 1905 (Rev. Laws Supp. 1909, s 975-1), provided that all assessments levied by any city containing a population of over 50,000 should be a paramount lien of equal rank with the lien of the state for taxes, and that a sale or perfecting title under either should not pay or extinguish the other.

It is held:

(1) The law does not contain contradictory propositions. The Legislature thereby intended to make the lien under city assessments and state taxes equal, and to abolish any priority between them, and sufficiently expressed that intention.

(2) The act is constitutional, so far as its title and classification of cities by population are concerned.

(3) The applicant owned the premises subject to lien of city assessments. William G. White, for appellant.

J. C. Michael and Louis R. Frankel, for respondents.

JAGGARD, J.

Plaintiff and appellant initiated proceedings to register title to certain lands. His title was based upon a forfeited tax deed issued at a tax sale held in November, 1907. The validity of the proceedings had been established by a district court judgment in an action instituted by the applicant for that purpose. The defendant and respondent the city of St. Paul held certain local assessment certificates claimed to be liens on the property. The sale pursuant to which applicant received his deed was later in point of time than any liens claimed by the city. The trial court found that the applicant was the owner of the premises, subject to the lien of a city assessment certificate issued in accordance with sale made (on July 28, 1906), and that said lien was of equal rank with the tax lien under which the applicant acquired title. This appeal was taken from the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial.

Prior to 1905 the lien of a St. Paul city assessment was subordinate to the lien of the state for taxes levied on the same property under the general laws, without reference to the time when the lien accrued. White v. Knowlton, 84 Minn. 141, 86 N. W. 755;White v. Thomas, 91 Minn. 395, 98 N. W. 101. Chapter 200, Gen. Laws 1905 (Rev. Laws Supp. 1909, § 975-1), provided: ‘That all assessments upon real property for local improvements made or levied by the proper authorities of any city in the state of Minnesota now or hereafter containing a population of over 50,000, according to the last national or state census, shall be a paramount lien upon the land upon which they are imposed from the date of the warrant issued for the collection thereof, and of equal rank with the lien of the state for taxes which have been or may be levied upon said property under the general laws of the state; and that the general rules of law as to priority of tax liens shall apply equally to the liens of such assessments and of such liens for general taxes, with the same force and effect as though all of the liens aforesaid and all of the taxes and assessments aforesaid were of the same general character and imposed for the same purpose and by the same authority, without regard to the priority in point of time of the attaching of either of said liens, and a sale or perfecting title under either shall not bar or extinguish the other.

1. The applicant insists that: ‘If chapter 200 is valid, it is plainly in derogation of the sovereignty of the state, and will not be upheld, unless the intent of the Legislature is too clear to admit of doubt or argument. This chapter contains two contradictory provisions, and therefore it cannot be said to clearly and plainly appear therein that the Legislature intended to waive the paramount lien of the state upon forfeited tax lands for the benefit of the city of St. Paul.’ The earlier part of the statute provides that the general rules of law as to priority of tax liens shall apply equally to liens for assessments and to the liens for general taxes. The later part of the statute provides that ‘a sale or perfecting title under either shall not bar or extinguish the other.’

This construction we think is not sound. The statute gives to both assessment and general taxes a paramount lien of equal rank. It was entirely consistent to provide that neither lien should have priority over the other, and that a foreclosure of either should not extinguish the other. The purpose of the statute was to meet the exigencies due to a peculiar city charter. The cities of this state are divided into two classes with respect to the enforcement of local assessment liens. In the one class, as in Minneapolis and in Duluth under its present charter, the charge for local assessments is added to the state tax entered on general tax lists and collected by the regular county officers. A judgment, if any, is entered for the aggregate amount of taxes and assessments. In the other class, as in the city of St. Paul and in some smaller cities, the local assessment is a separate charge, with a separate lien enforced by appropriate city officers. In consequence the question as to priority of lien as between state taxes and local assessments did not arise in...