National Bond & Security Company v. Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County

• Decision Date: 04 December 1903
• Docket Number: 13,648 - (113)
• Parties: NATIONAL BOND & SECURITY COMPANY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 N.W. 413

91 Minn. 63

NATIONAL BOND & SECURITY COMPANY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY and Others

Nos. 13,648 - (113)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 4, 1903

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to vacate as to certain land a tax judgment and a state assignment certificate of sale issued thereon, and to recover from the county the amount paid for said certificate and for subsequent delinquent taxes upon the premises. The case was tried before Pond, J., who found in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

State Assignment Certificate.

A state assignment certificate, made pursuant to G.S. 1894, § 1601, is not void because the purchaser did not pay taxes which were then due and unpaid, but not delinquent.

Tax Sale.

If, in the proceedings culminating in a tax judgment, several separate tracts of land are assessed and treated as one tract, and judgment is entered against the land as one tract the auditor must follow the judgment, and sell the land as one tract. The land here in question is, in law and in fact one separate tract.

Description in Judgment -- Evidence.

A description in a tax judgment which distinctly points out the land in such a way as to leave no room for mistake as to what property is intended is sufficient, and evidence of extrinsic facts is admissible to apply the description and identify the land. Rule applied, and held that the description of the land in the tax judgment in this case is sufficient.

Description in Delinquent List.

A description of land in the published delinquent list is sufficient if it so describes the land that the owner and all other interested parties may identify it with reasonable certainty. The description of the land in the delinquent list herein is sufficient, within this rule.

William G. White, for appellant.

F. H. Boardman, County Attorney, and C. L. Smith, Assistant County Attorney, for respondents.

OPINION

START, C.J.

The plaintiff, as the assignee of a tax certificate, brought this action against the county of Hennepin and the original owner of the land sold for taxes to have the sale and certificate adjudged void, and for the recovery from the county of the amount thereof, with interest. The county appeared and answered, asserting the validity of the sale and certificate, but the original owner did not appear. The trial court made its findings of fact, and, as a conclusion of law, found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against the county, and directed judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

There is no dispute as to the facts, and the only question here for review is whether the findings of fact sustain the conclusions of law; that is, do they show that the certificate is valid? The facts, as found by the trial court, are, briefly stated, these: The northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 1, township 29, range 24, is located in the county of Hennepin, in the state of Minnesota, and in the Ninth Ward of the city of Minneapolis. This tract of land is subject to the easement of a railroad right of way -- acquired by condemnation proceedings which are a matter of public record -- two hundred feet in width. The right of way is fenced, and actually used and occupied by the railway company as such. There are also upon and across the tract four public streets of the city of Minneapolis, legally laid out pursuant to the statute and the charter of the city. The proceedings whereby the streets were laid out, including maps and plats thereof showing the location of the streets on the ground and across the railway right of way, were duly filed and recorded. The streets, as laid out, extend directly north and south across the tract, but they have never been graded. The land, except the right of way, has never been fenced or used for any purpose, except occasionally for the grazing of cattle, and ever since the year 1887 has been known as the Henry H. Gregg (the original owner) tract, and in tax proceedings ever since has been so designated. It has never been platted.

On March 21, 1895, a tax judgment was entered against this tract of land in the district court of the county of Hennepin for the taxes delinquent thereon for the year 1893, in which the land was described as follows: "N.E. I/4 N.W. I/4, Section 1, Township 29, Range 24, exc. R.R. and Sts." But in the published delinquent tax list in the proceedings culminating in the judgment it was described as being in the county of Hennepin, city of Minneapolis, Ninth Ward thereof, in section 1, township 29, range 21. Otherwise the description was the same as in the judgment. Under the head of name of owner or to whom assessed, the name of Henry H. Gregg appeared. The dividing line between ranges 23 and 24 runs north and south through the Ninth Ward of the city of Minneapolis; and a portion of the ward is located upon township 29, range 23, and the remainder thereof upon township 29, range 24. There is no range 21, either in the city of Minneapolis or in Hennepin county, and there is but one section 1 in the Ninth Ward of the city of Minneapolis. On May 11, 1895, at a tax sale pursuant to the tax judgment, the land was duly bid in by the state -- there being no bidders -- for $959.78; and on July 20 of the same year the county auditor executed to the plaintiff's assignor a state assignment certificate of the land, in the usual form, for the sum of $978.96. At this time there were no subsequent delinquent taxes against the land, but the taxes for 1894 were then due and unpaid; but the assignee of the state did not pay them until January 16, 1896, when it paid therefor the sum of $893.30, and received a receipt therefor in the usual form. The plaintiff has succeeded to all the rights in the premises of such original purchaser. The plaintiff here urges that the state assignment certificate and tax receipt are void, for four reasons:

1. The first alleged reason is that the purchaser of the state interest in the land did not pay the taxes for the year 1894, when he took the state assignment certificate. In support of this proposition, counsel cite and rely upon the following cases: Security Trust Co. v. Von Heyderstaedt, 64 Minn. 409, 67 N.W. 219; Doherty v. Real Estate T.I. & T. Co., 85 Minn. 518, 89 N.W. 853; Hoyt v. Chapin, 85 Minn. 524, 89 N.W. 850. None of the cases cited is in point.

The first one arose under a provision of the charter of the city of St. Paul which, in legal effect, so limited the authority of the city treasurer in selling land by virtue of a tax judgment that he had no power to sell for less than the total amount of the judgment, interest, and costs. A sale was made for a sum less than such total amount, and it was held to be void.

The second case cited was one where the land had been bid in by the state, and its interests were afterwards assigned to a purchaser pursuant to G.S. 1894, § 1601. There were then unpaid subsequent delinquent taxes on the land, which the purchaser was not required to pay when the state assignment certificate was delivered to him. The certificate, for this reason, was held void, because the auditor had no authority to make it unless such delinquent taxes were paid.

In the last case (Hoyt v. Chapin) there was a sale pursuant to G.S. 1894, §§ 1616, 1617, providing for the sale of land forfeited to the state. There were unpaid current taxes on the land when the auditor made a deed thereof to the purchaser, and it was held that the auditor was not authorized to make the deed without the payment of such current taxes.

Now, in the case at bar the facts are radically different from the facts in any of the cited cases, for this is a case of an assignment, under the provisions of section 1601, by the state of its interest in the land bid in by it, but which had not been forfeited to the state. In such cases the current unpaid taxes are not required to be paid before the execution of the state assignment certificate, but only subsequent delinquent taxes. There were no such delinquent taxes at the time of the making of the certificate here in question. We therefore hold that the failure to pay the current taxes, not then delinquent, did not affect the validity of the certificate.

2. The second reason urged why the certificate is void is that several separate tracts of real estate were sold by the auditor as one. The county auditor, in selling land pursuant to a tax judgment, is required to sell --

"Each piece or parcel of land separately in the order in which they are described in the judgment, and by the description therein." G.S. 1894, § 1592.

The land in this case was sold by the description of it in the judgment. The descriptions in the certificate and judgment are identical. The judgment treats the land as a single tract, and the auditor was bound to follow the judgment in this...