Merrill v. Dearing

Decision Date02 December 1884
Citation32 Minn. 479,21 N.W. 721
PartiesMERRILL v DEARING.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from a judgment of the district court of Ramsey county.

H. L. Williams and A. R. Capehart, for respondent, Daniel D. Merrill.

Willis & Willard, for appellant, Samuel Dearing.

MITCHELL, J.

This is an ordinary action in ejectment, and was brought in 1875. The important issue in the case was raised by the supplemental answer of defendant, interposed in November, 1882, in which he sets up title in himself acquired under a tax sale made September 19, 1877, pursuant to a tax judgment rendered September 1, 1877. The court below found adversely to defendant on two grounds: First, because, even if the judgment and sale were valid, plaintiff's right of redemption had not expired, because no notice had ever been given of the time of the expiration of the redemption period, etc., as required by section 37, c. 6, Laws 1877; and, second, because the judgment itself was void, the notice on which it was rendered requiring parties to answer 10 days after the last publication, instead of 20, as provided by law.

1. We shall not here consider whether section 37, c. 6, Laws 1877, was repealed by implication by the tax law of 1878, or not until 1881, by section 22, c. 10, of the laws of that year. The question is immaterial for the purposes of this case. The right of property acquired by the purchaser at this sale, and the right of redemption remaining to the owner, must both be governed by the law in force at the time of sale. Neither, in our judgment, could be either abridged or enlarged by subsequent legislation. This is unquestionably so as to the right of the purchaser. The same rule ought to apply in favor of the owner as against any statute shortening the time to redeem, as it is equally unjust to legislate against the owner of the land as in his favor. State v. McDonald, 26 Minn. 145;Hillibert v. Porter, 28 Minn. 496;S. C. 11 N. W. REP. 84;Fleming v. Roverud, 30 Minn. 273;S. C. 15 N. W. REP. 119; State v. Foley, Id. 350; S. C. 15 N. W. REP. 375; Cooley, Tax'n, 370.

Prior to 1877 no notice was required to be given to the owner. The right of redemption expired absolutely three years after the date of sale. This feature of requiring such a notice was first introduced by section 37, c. 6, Laws 1877. This statute is highly remedial, and, like all such acts, especially those regulating the right of redemption, is to be regarded favorably, and construed liberally and beneficially. The object of this law evidently was that, as the property owner might never have known that his property was sold for taxes, or might have forgotten the fact or the date, he should have timely notice of the necessity of redeeming...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Roberts v. First Nat. Bank of Fargo
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 9, 1899
    ... ... See Morgan v. Commissioners , 27 Kan. 89; ... Forqueran v. Donnally , 7 W.Va. 114; ... Merrill v. Dearing , 32 Minn. 479, 21 N.W ... 721; Robinson v. Howe , 13 Wis. 341. The ... defendant bank is, therefore, entitled to the full benefit ... ...
  • McDowall v. Herbert
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1915
    ... ... State ex rel. Wheeler v. Foley, 30 Minn. 350, 15 ... N.W. 375; Cooley, Taxn. 350; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 ... Minn. 271, 22 N.W. 614; Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn ... 479, 21 N.W. 721; Johnson v. Taylor, 150 Cal. 201, 10 L.R.A ... (N.S.) 818, 119 Am. St. Rep. 181, 88 P. 903 ... ...
  • Grieb, County Clerk v. Natl. Bank of Ky.'s Rec.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • December 5, 1933
    ...Hull v. State, 29 Fla. 79, 11 So. 97, 16 L.R.A. 308, 30 Am. St. Rep. 95; Solis v. Williams, 205 Mass. 350, 91 N.E. 148; Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn. 479, 21 N.W. 721; Dikeman v. Dikeman, 11 Paige (N.Y.) 484; State ex rel. Waldo v. Fylpaa, 3 S.D. 586, 54 N.W. 599. The same is true, a fortior......
  • State ex rel. Nat'l Bond & Sec. Co. v. Krahmer
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1908
    ...of this notice and the right to redeem remained irrespective of the lapse of time until the notice was given. As said in Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn. 479, 21 N. W. 721, the statute meant that the owner's right to redeem should continue until and for a specified number of days after the serv......
  • 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