Pine Cnty. v. Lambert

• Decision Date: 07 May 1894
• Citation: 57 Minn. 203,58 N.W. 990
• Parties: PINE COUNTY v. LAMBERT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 203

58 N.W. 990

PINE COUNTY

v.LAMBERT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 7, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Former decisions followed to the effect:

1.That under Gen. Laws 1881, c. 135, the state acquired no title to the land by virtue of the tax judgment, unless it was offered for sale, and bid in for the state in default of other bidders.

2.That proceedings to enforce the collection of taxes against real estate are “an action upon a liability created by statute,” within the meaning of Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 6.

Case certified from district court, Pine county; F. M. Crosby, Judge.

Action by the county of Pine against Ezra F. Lambert.The defense was overruled, and judgment entered against the land, and case certified.Reversed.

R. C. Saunders, for plaintiff.

W. H. Grant and J. F. Fitzpatrick, for defendant.

MITCHELL, J.

This case is fully covered by former decisions of this court.We have held that the state acquired no title to the land by virtue of a tax judgment under Gen. Laws 1881, c. 135, unless offered for sale as provided in section 4, and bid off for the state in default of other bidders.Gilfillan v. Chatterton, 38 Minn. 335, 37 N. W. 583;Mulvey v. Tozer, 40 Minn. 384, 42 N. W. 387.The agreed facts are that these lands were never sold under the tax judgment, “and no entry of any description thereof was made in the tax judgment book, or in the copy thereof in the hands of the county auditor.”This means that they were not “bid in for the state.”Indeed, it does not appear that the lands were even offered for sale.Hence, the most that can be claimed for the state is that it had an unsatisfied tax judgment against the land, rendered in 1881.And whether this proceeding, commenced under Gen. Laws 1893, c. 150, be deemed one on the judgment, or one to enforce the collection of the same taxes for which the judgment was rendered, it is, in either view, barred by the statute of limitations, which runs against the state the same as against individuals.Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 12.If it be deemed the former, it is barred by the 10 -years limitation of section 5 of chapter 66; and, if it be deemed the latter, then it is barred under the 6-years limitation of subdivision 2 of section 6 of the same chapter, as “an action upon a liability created by statute.”County of Redwood v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 512, 41 N. W. 465,42 N. W. 473;Mower Co. v. Crane, 51 Minn. 201, 53 N. W. 629.And, inasmuch as the right was extinguished before the act of 1893 was enacted, it was not in the power of the legislature...