Langevin v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 24 March 1892
• Citation: 49 Minn. 189
• Parties: ELEANORA LANGEVIN <I>et al.</I> <I>vs.</I> CITY OF ST. PAUL <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 189

49 Minn. 189

ELEANORA LANGEVIN et al.vs.

CITY OF ST. PAUL et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs February 3, 1892.

Decided March 24, 1892.

Appeal by Edward Langevin, now deceased, from orders of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kerr, J., made January 23, 1890, sustaining demurrers to his complaint.

This action was commenced December 9, 1889, against the City of St. Paul and Sylvester Kipp, as administrator of the estate of Ratchford D. Wollam, deceased, to recover $1,728.10 paid the city by Langevin May 5, 1889, to redeem from tax sale lots three, (3,) four, (4,) and five, (5,) in block five, (5,) in Bazille & Robert's Addition to West St. Paul. These lots are situated in the south-east corner of the block, and front east onto Custer street. The southern one is Lot five (5,) and adjoining it on the south is Fairfield avenue running east and west. Edward Langevin owned lots three (3) and four, (4,) and Wollam's heirs owned lot five, (5.) Wollam died intestate October 28, 1886, and defendant Kipp was duly appointed administrator of his estate. In the year 1888 Langevin was in possession of this corner lot five, (5,) claiming title thereto under a sale of it for taxes, but in August, 1889, his tax title was adjudged void, and he was ousted from its possession. Lots three (3) and four (4) do not touch Fairfield avenue in any manner.

In the year 1886, the city improved and graded Fairfield avenue, and the sum of $313 was assessed therefor against the three lots jointly, when, as was alleged in the complaint, it should have been assessed against lot five, (5,) as it only abutted on that street. Judgment was obtained for this assessment August 19, 1886, against the three lots, and they were sold January 20, 1887, to pay it. E. J. Meier bid them in, and received the tax certificate. Another tax for this improvement of Fairfield avenue was assessed in 1887 in the same way against the three lots jointly. Judgment was obtained therefor May 2, 1887, for $999.01, and on June 7, 1887, the lots were again sold to pay it. P. V. Heyderstaedt bid them in on this sale, and received the tax certificate.

On May 5, 1889, Edward Langevin redeemed the three lots from these sales by paying to the city treasurer $1,728.10, including interest and fees. An agent paid the money for him, supposing Langevin owned all three of the lots. He soon after discovered the mistake, and on June 10, 1889, applied to the city treasurer for return of the money. The treasurer refused on the ground that he had paid over the money to Meier and Heyderstaedt. Defendant Kipp, by order of the Probate Court, sold lot five (5) on May 6, 1889, to James Bennett for $6,500, agreeing as such administrator that out of the money he would pay all taxes, assessments, and liens thereon; but on going to the city treasury he found that Langevin had the day before paid the taxes and redeemed all three of the lots. Langevin soon after requested Kipp to pay him the amount so paid in redemption of the lots, but he refused.

The complaint in this action set forth with particularity these facts and others, and demanded judgment that the city repay plaintiff the $1,728.10, and also that Kipp, as administrator, pay it to plaintiff, or the city; and asked for such other relief as should seem to the court equitable. The charter of the City of St. Paul under which the assessments were made is Sp. Laws 1874, ch. 1, subch. 7, tit. 1, as amended by Sp. Laws 1885, ch. 7. The second judgment was obtained and the second sale made after the city charter was again amended by Sp. Laws 1887, ch. 7.

The defendants each demurred separately to the complaint on the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that several causes of action were improperly united, viz. one against the city, and another against defendant Kipp as administrator. These issues of law were brought to trial and on January 23, 1890, orders were made sustaining the demurrers. The plaintiff appealed to this court. After return was made and filed here, but before argument, Edward Langevin departed this life intestate. Eleanora Langevin and Achille Michaud were duly appointed administrators of his estate, and were substituted and made plaintiffs in his stead.

H. B. Farwell and J. L. MacDonald, for appellants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Daniel W. Lawler, City Atty., and Hermon W. Phillips, for respondent city.

S. & O. Kipp, for respondent Kipp.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendants demurred separately to the complaint. The demurrers were sustained, and the plaintiff appealed.

Lots three, (3,) four, (4,) and five, (5,) in block five, (5,) of Bazille & Robert's addition to West St. Paul, were contiguous lots fronting east on Custer street, lot five (5) being south of lots four (4) and three, (3.) Fairfield avenue ran along the south side of lot five, (5.) The length of that lot along Fairfield avenue was 150 feet. The plaintiff's intestate owned all of the block excepting lot five, (5.) In 1886, for the improvement of Fairfield avenue, two separate assessments were made upon lots three, (3,) four, (4,) and five, (5,) lots three (3) and four (4) being included in the assessment by reason of the erroneous belief that they, as well as lot five (5,) fronted upon Fairfield avenue. The assessments not being paid, judgments therefor were duly rendered against the three lots jointly in the years 1886 and 1887, respectively, and thereupon the property was sold, as provided by law, to certain private parties. For reasons stated in the complaint, the intestate did not know that any of these proceedings affected the lots owned by him until after the judgment sale.

In May, 1889, the intestate, acting through an agent, redeemed the three lots from such sales, paying to the treasurer of the city for that purpose the sum of $1,728.10. When this redemption was made, the agent of the intestate and the city treasurer supposed that lot five (5) belonged to the intestate, and that all of the lots fronted on Fairfield avenue, and hence were liable to be so assessed. On learning the facts, the intestate demanded of the city treasurer a return of the money so paid for redemption. Such repayment was refused, for the alleged reason that the treasurer had paid the money to the persons who had purchased at the sales from which such redemption was made.

The complaint shows no right to recover against the city. Upon the facts stated, the judgment was not invalid. No defect or irregularity in the proceedings is...