International Harvester Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 31235-31237. |
| Citation | 274 N.W. 217,200 Minn. 242 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. v. STATE. BENNETT MINING CO. v. SAME. HANNA ORE MINING CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Itasca County; A. L. Thwing, Judge.
Proceedings by the International Harvester Company, the Bennett Mining Company, and the Hanna Ore Mining Company against the State of Minnesota. From judgments, the State of Minnesota appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. Under provisions of Laws 1935, c. 300, § 1, petitioning taxpayers were authorized to have their claims in respect of claimed illegality of special taxes levied for tourist camp purposes determined by the court, as they were, under terms of their respective leases with the fee owners, required to pay all taxes ‘ lawfully assessed and levied’ upon involved properties.
2. Assessing village was not authorized to levy special tax for maintenance of tourist camps as there is no implied power to levy a special tax when the expenditure is optional as is the case under tourist camp act (Laws 1923, c. 277, § 1, 1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 1933-9), village being governed by general law and as such limited to a 20-mill levy for general corporate purposes (1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 1225).
3. Statement in act that expenditure thereunder permitted ‘ shall not exceed in any one year a sum equal to the amount which may be raised by a one mill tax upon the taxable property of such municipality’ was clearly intended to place a limitation on expenditure and was not a grant of power to levy a special tax.
John J. Benton, of Grand Rapids, and J. C. Henley of Keewatin, for appellant.
W. K Montague and Mitchell Gillette Nye & Harries, all of Duluth and John M. Gannon, of Hibbing, for respondents.
Three cases are involved in as many appeals, all taken from judgments entered pursuant to findings. Tried together below and similarly submitted here, a discussion of the fact issues separately is unnecessary as the controlling facts apply to all.
To be noted, however, is the fact that the title in each of the cases is the reverse of what it should be. In the court below the complaining taxpayers were petitioners and the state of Minnesota and Itasca county, as the tax enforcing subdivision thereof, were the respondents. To the end that the record may accurately present the relation of the parties, we deem it prudent that the title in the three cases be reversed here. Hereafter we shall refer to the petitioning taxpayers as plaintiffs and to the state as defendant.
The cases involve the taxes levied in 1935, payable in 1936, upon certain parcels of real estate belonging to or leased by plaintiffs in the village of Keewatin. The tax in controversy is one laid by the village (in addition to its general corporate levy), for the maintenance of a tourist camp, the claimed authority therefor being Laws 1923, c. 277, § 1, 1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 1933-9. The present proceedings were taken and conducted by plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of Laws 1935, c. 300 (3 Mason Minn.St.1936 Supp. §§ 2126-1 to 2126-14, inc.). They sought thereby to annul only so much of the tax as was represented by a special levy made by the village for such tourist camp purposes; their theory being that such tax and the levy made to accomplish its enforcement were ‘ illegal, unauthorized and void’ in that the tourist camp law (Laws 1923, c. 277) by its terms limits expenditures for the acquisition and maintenance of such camps, but grants no power to levy a special tax to accomplish its purpose. The court found the facts and construed the act to be as claimed by plaintiffs, and, as conclusions of law, granted the petitioned relief.
Counsel for the state have assigned several errors, but we think a discussion of two thereof will settle the controversy on its merits. The points urged are: (1) That there is a misjoinder of parties in that the fee owners of the involved properties were not joined either as parties plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings; (2) that in any event the tax levied is legal and proper on the theory that the law authorized by implication the levy of an additional tax to meet its requirements.
1. Laws 1935, c. 300, § 1, provides: ‘ Any person having any estate, right, title or interest in or lien upon any parcel of land who claims that * * * the tax levied against the same is illegal, in whole or in part, * * * may have the validity of his claim * * * determined by the district court of the county in which the tax is levied by serving copies of’ his petition upon certain designated officers of the county. By section 2 it is provided: ‘ Such petition need not be in any particular form, but shall clearly identify the land involved and shall set forth in concise language the claim, * * * asserted.’ Under section 5, ‘ The court shall without delay summarily hear and determine the claim * * * made by said petition and shall direct judgment accordingly, and in the trial thereof shall disregard all technicalities and matters of form not affecting the substantial merits.’
The record discloses that certain properties involved herein were...
To continue reading
Request your trial