Grand Forks Cnty. v. Fredericks

• Decision Date: 17 June 1907
• Citation: 112 N.W. 839,16 N.D. 118
• Parties: GRAND FORKS COUNTY v. FREDERICKS et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

16 N.D. 118

112 N.W. 839

GRAND FORKS COUNTY

v.FREDERICKS et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

June 17, 1907.

Syllabus by the Court.

A description of land in an assessment roll must be so definite and certain as to afford the owner the means of identification of the land as his land, before the assessment is a valid one.

The description must also be definite in order to inform intending purchasers what lands are offered for sale.

The fact that the owner is not misled and is aware that it is his lot or land that is intended to be assessed, and that he owns no other real estate in the block, is immaterial, and does not have the effect of validating a void assessment.

The absence of a verification from the assessment roll is a defense to a proceeding for the collection of a tax under the provisions of chapter 161, p. 213, Laws 1903.

The provisions of chapter 166, p. 232, Laws 1903, which legalizes only irregularities in assessing or levying taxes upon real estate, do not apply to void assessments by reason of failure to describe the land definitely.

A description in an assessment roll of a part of a lot as the “N. 23x200 ft.,” the said lot being about 600 feet long and extending in a northeasterly direction, is void for indefiniteness, although the owner of the lot is correctly named in the assessment roll.

Questions certified to the Supreme Court by the district court for review, pursuant to section 10 of said chapter 161, p. 218, Laws 1903, should be based upon a statement of the facts established on the trial, and the evidence should not be returned to this court.

Upon a review of a judgment of the district court under said section, questions of law, and not questions of fact, are reviewable.

Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks County; C. J. Fisk, Judge.

Action by the county of Grand Forks against E. B. Fredericks and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. B. Wineman, State's Atty., and B. G. Skulason, for appellant. W. J. Mayer, for respondents.

MORGAN, C. J.

This action is brought by the county of Grand Forks against the defendant, under the provisions of chapter 161, p. 213, of the Laws of 1903, an act entitled as follows: “An act to enable boards of county commissioners to institute proceedings to enforce payment of taxes on real property sold to the state or county for taxes and remaining unredeemed for more than three years.” The county claims that the defendant has not paid any taxes on the land described in the tax proceedings during the years 1890 to 1903 inclusive, excepting in the year 1892. The defendant answered and alleged several grounds upon which she claimed that she was not liable for the payment of the taxes upon such land. Among the defenses so alleged is one that the land or lot described was never assessed, for the reason that it was not described in the assessment roll. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, sustaining the defendant's contentions, and dismissed the proceedings against the county of Grand Forks. After the rendition of judgment, the trial court certified certain questions for a decision by this court, under the provisions of section 10 of said act, which reads as follows, so far as it bears on the question of the making of a certificate by the trial court: “The judgment which the court shall render shall be final, except that upon application of the county, or other party against whom the court shall have decided the point raised by any defense or objection, the court may, if in its opinion the point is of great public importance, or likely to arise frequently, make a brief statement of the facts established, bearing on the point, and of its decision and forthwith transmit the same to the clerk of the Supreme Court, who shall enter the same as a cause pending in such court, and place the same on the term calendar of such court for the term then in session, or for the first term thereafter.”

The respondent makes a motion in this court to strike out the evidence and certain other parts of the record, as not properly in the record under proceedings for a review by this court of the decision of the trial court in such cases. In this case, all of the evidence taken upon the trial has been returned to this court, together with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. Under the section just quoted, it is not proper practice to certify the evidence on which the decision of the trial court was based to this court. The trial court makes “a brief statement of facts established * * * and its decision.” From this reading, it is clear that the evidence has no place in the record to be transmitted from the trial court. This court is to reach its conclusion upon the facts established as certified to this court. In other words, no questions of fact are reviewable by this court under proceedings based on this section. This court passes only upon questions of law. In this case, however, the trial court certified its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and these may be taken as statements of facts established by the trial court. However, proper practice would require that the trial court make a statement of the facts established in connection with the questions certified, and it is unnecessary, or would be unnecessary in many cases, to return all of the findings of fact. This section contemplates a summary proceeding in the Supreme Court to determine the questions certified, and does not contemplate a return to this court of all the evidence or all the proceedings. The motion will therefore be granted to strike from the record the evidence certified to this court; but the case will be reviewed on the findings of fact, which we will consider in this case as equivalent to the making of a brief statement of the facts established in the court below.

This law is similar to section 1589, Rev. St. Minn. 1894, now repealed. The construction given by the Supreme Court of that state to that act is that ultimate facts and the court's conclusions only are properly certified to the Supreme Court under that act. In re Cloquet Lumber Co., 61 Minn. 234, 63 N. W. 628;Morrison Co. v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 451, 44 N. W. 982;County of Ramsey v. Railway Co., 33 Minn. 537, 24 N. W. 313. A statute similar to this was before this court in Wells County v. E. H. McHenry et al., 7 N. D. 246, 74 N. W. 241, and in Emmons County v. C. C. Bennett, 9 N. D. 131, 81 N. W. 22; but no question of practice was therein involved. It is claimed that this case is not such a case as is contemplated to be reviewed by this court under said section. That section specifies that the questions may be certified, “if, in the opinion of the trial court, the point is of great public importance or likely to arise frequently.” As this point was not raised or argued, we shall not determine the question suggested. It is clear, however, that this section is not meant to give the right of review upon a certificate of all questions that relate only to the determination of private rights. It may be that the certificate of the judge that the question is deemed of great public importance, and that it is likely to arise frequently, would be considered as a final determination of the importance of the question. Whether such certificate would be binding upon this court in all cases we do not determine. However, it is clearly the intent of the law that, in certifying cases to this court, the trial court should act with judicial discretion, and only certify such questions as are deemed of great public importance, or are likely to arise frequently.

The principal question involved in the merits is as to whether the tract of land involved in the taxation proceedings was properly described in the assessment roll. The tract attempted to be assessed was composed of a part of three lots in block 25, original townsite of the city of Grand Forks. Practically the same point is raised against the validity of the assessment as to the description of the three lots. The part of lot 2 which was attempted to be assessed is accurately described as follows: “Part of lot 2, beginning at a point in block 25, original townsite of Grand Forks, N. D., and on the line of Third street, distant 73 feet from the intersection of the southerly line of De Mers avenue and the...