Otter Tail Cnty. v. Batchelder

• Decision Date: 16 December 1891
• Citation: Otter Tail Cnty. v. Batchelder, 47 Minn. 512, 50 N.W. 536 (Minn. 1891)
• Parties: OTTER TAIL COUNTY v BATCHELDER ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 512

50 N.W. 536

OTTER TAIL COUNTYvBATCHELDER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 16, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In proceedings for the recovery of a judgment against real estate for taxes it may be shown, for the purpose of reducing the tax charged upon the land, that the statutory requirement of equality in the assessment had been intentionally disregarded, or that by reason of some perfectly obvious mistake there had been no real assessment upon any rule of equality.

2. Proof of such facts may be circumstantial; but the mere fact of error in estimating values is not a defense.

Case certified from district court, Otter Tail county; BAXTER, Judge. Reversed.

Proceedings by the county of Otter Tail against George W. Batchelder and another to enforce payment of taxes. An order for judgment was rendered against defendants, and at their request the case was certified to the supreme court.

Charles S. Batchelder and Parsons & Brown, for appellants.

M. J. Daly, Co. Atty., and Moses E. Clapp, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

Batchelder and Buckham, being the owners of nearly 60 tracts of land in the town of Edna, in Otter Tail county, interposed an answer in these proceedings for the recovery of a tax judgment against such lands, and upon their answer the matter was tried in accordance with the statute in the district court. The decision was against the parties thus answering, who may be designated the defendants, and at their request the matter was certified to this court for review. Briefly stated, the defense shown or offered to be shown was as follows: It was proved beyond dispute (as the court finds) that the lands in question were unimproved, situate remote from roads, and the highest cash value of any of them did not exceed $2.75 per acre. The average valuation of lands in the whole township, including improved lands, as assessed in these tax proceedings did not exceed $4.44 per acre, while the lands in question of these defendants were assessed at the average value of $4.07 per acre. The defendants offered to prove “that lands other than those of the defendants in said town, both improved and unimproved, and the structures, were assessed at less than one-half their cash value.” This proof was excluded. They also offered to show that they, being non-residents of the county, duly petitioned the county board of equalization for a reduction of the assessed valuation of their lands, which proof was also excluded. The answer, setting forth substantially the facts above indicated, further alleged that the taxes sought to be enforced were “partially, unfairly, and unequally assessed.” As we understand from the note of the learned judge appended to his decision it was considered that only when there has been an omission of some of the proceedings prescribed by statute, which omission has resulted in prejudice to the defendant, can such a defense be made by answer as these defendants sought to present; and that, in the absence of any such omission, the land-owner is concluded by the action of the board of equalization. We think that the statute is more liberal than this in respect to the making of defenses in the tax proceeding wherein judgment is sought to be recovered. Section 75, c. 11, Gen. St. 1878, gives the right in general and unrestricted terms to persons interested in the land to file an answer setting forth their defense or objection to the tax for which judgment against the land is sought. Section 79 is as follows: “If all the provisions of law in relation to the assessment and levy of taxes shall have been complied with, of which the list so filed with the clerk shall be prima facie evidence, then judgment shall be rendered for such taxes and the penalties and costs. But no omission of any of the things by law provided in relation to such assessments and levy, or of anything required by any officer or officers to be done prior to the filing of the list with the clerk, shall be a defense or objection to the taxes appearing upon any piece or parcel of land, unless it be also made to appear to the court that such omission has resulted to the prejudice of the party objecting, and that the taxes against such piece or parcel of land have been partially, unfairly, or unequally assessed; and in such case, but no other, the court may reduce the amount of taxes upon such piece or parcel, and give judgment accordingly. It shall always be a defense in such proceedings, when made to appear by answer and proofs, that the taxes have been paid, or that the property is not subject to taxation.” Except as to the matters of exemption and payment specified in the last sentence of this section, it is noticeable that the statute does not affirmatively and specifically state the nature of the defenses which may be made, unless it be in the language...