Red River Valley Brick Co. v. City of Grand Forks

• Decision Date: 05 February 1914
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 725

27 N.D. 8

THE RED RIVER VALLEY BRICK COMPANY, a Domestic Corporation, School District No. 59, and the Township of Falconer, of the County of Grand Forks, North Dakota, v. THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, a Public Corporation, M. F. Murphy, as Mayor, Sim Miller, as Assessor, and C. J. Evanson, as Auditor, of the City of Grand Forks

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

February 5, 1914

Action by above-named respondents to enjoin the city of Grand Forks and its officers from levying and collecting taxes and exercising jurisdiction over certain territory attempted to be annexed to said city. From a judgment of the District Court of Grand Forks County in favor of plaintiffs the defendants appeal, Hon. C. F. Templeton, J.

Affirmed.

J. B Wineman, for appellants.

The complaint and affidavits upon which the injunction issued are insufficient. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78, 26 L.Ed. 658; Oliver v. Omaha, 3 Dill. 368, Fed. Cas No. 10,499; Burnett v. Sacramento, 12 Cal. 84, 73 Am. Dec. 518; Dixon v. Mayes, 72 Cal. 166, 13 P 471; Linton v. Athens, 53 Ga. 588; Cary v Pekin, 88 Ill. 154, 30 Am. Rep. 543; Stilz v Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515; Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind. 225; Perkins v. Burlington, 77 Iowa 553, 42 N.W. 441; Ford v. North Des Moines, 80 Iowa 626, 45 N.W. 1031; 1 Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 245, 246.

Equity will not enjoin the collection of a municipal tax by injunction where the taxing power has been exercised within the limits of the law. Groff v. Frederick City, 44 Md. 67; Manly v. Raleigh, 57 N.C. (4 Jones, Eq.) 370; Graham v. Greenville, 67 Tex. 62, 2 S.W. 742; High, Inj. 4th ed. 521, 522; Continental Hose Co. v. Mitchell, 15 N.D. 145, 105 N.W. 1108; Ogle v. Belleville, 238 Ill. 389, 87 N.E. 354.

Such proceeding does not lie where the tax is not due, and where there is no threat to collect it. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Bonner, 24 Colo. 220, 49 P. 366; Troutman v. McClesky, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 561, 27 S.W. 173, 22 Cyc. 775, 776; Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind. 225; Glover v. Terre Haute, 129 Ind. 593, 29 N.E. 412; Kuhn v. Port Townsend, 12 Wash. 605, 29 L.R.A. 445, 50 Am. St. Rep. 911, 41 P. 923; Union P. R. Co. v. Cheyenne (Union P. R. Co. v. Ryan) 113 U.S. 516, 28 L.Ed. 1098, 5 S.Ct. 601.

Nothing that can be remedied by a suit at law will justify or authorize an injunction. State R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 23 L.Ed. 669; Arkansas Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Madden, 175 U.S. 269, 44 L.Ed. 159, 20 S.Ct. 119; Lyon v. Alley, 130 U.S. 177, 32 L.Ed. 899, 9 S.Ct. 480; Milwaukee v. Koeffler, 116 U.S. 219, 29 L.Ed. 612, 6 S.Ct. 372; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Dickey County, 11 N.D. 107, 90 N.W. 260; Schaffner v. Young, 10 N.D. 245, 86 N.W. 733; St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co. v. Bottineau County (St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co. v. Soucie) 9 N.D. 346, 50 L.R.A. 262, 83 N.W. 212; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Rolfson, 23 S.D. 405, 122 N.W. 344.

The plaintiffs have pursued the wrong remedy. Quo warranto was their proper remedy. State ex rel. Fletcher v. Osburn, 24 Nev. 187, 51 P. 839; State ex rel. Anderson v. Tillamook, 62 Ore. 332, 124 P. 638; State ex rel. French v. Cook, 39 Ore. 377, 65 P. 89; State v. Millis, 61 Ore. 245, 119 P. 763; People ex rel. Warren v. York, 247 Ill. 591, 93 N.E. 401; Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224; Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504; Keigwin v. Drainage Comrs. 115 Ill. 347, 5 N.E. 575; Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill. 478, 13 N.E. 246; Bodman v. Lake Fork Special Drainage Dist. 132 Ill. 439, 24 N.E. 630; People ex rel. Wood v. Jones, 137 Ill. 35, 27 N.E. 294; People ex rel. Sibley v. Dyer, 205 Ill. 575, 69 N.E. 70; Shanley v. People, 225 Ill. 579, 80 N.E. 277.

A private individual will not be permitted to attack the incorporation collaterally and contend that it is not valid. Forsythe v. Hammond, 142 Ind. 505, 30 L.R.A. 576, 40 N.E. 267, 41 N.E. 950; Indianapolis v. McAvoy, 86 Ind. 587; Kuhn v. Port Townsend, 12 Wash. 605, 29 L.R.A. 445, 50 Am. St. Rep. 911, 41 P. 923; State ex rel. Lowe v. Henderson, 145 Mo. 329, 46 S.W. 1076; School Dist. v. State, 29 Kan. 57; State ex rel. Brown v. Pierre, 15 S.D. 559, 90 N.W. 1047; Coe v. Gregory, 53 Mich. 19, 18 N.W. 541; McCain v. Des Moines, 128 Iowa 331, 103 N.W. 979; Mendenhall v. Burton, 42 Kan. 570, 22 P. 558.

Laches may defeat any right to attack. State v. Leatherman, 38 Ark. 81; State ex rel. West v. Des Moines, 96 Iowa 521, 31 L.R.A. 186, 59 Am. St. Rep. 381, 65 N.W. 819.

Injunction is not the remedy by which to test the legality of the organization of a municipality. 2 High, Inj. 4th ed. p. 1259; St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co. v. Bottineau County (St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co. v. Soucie) 9 N.D. 346, 50 L.R.A. 262, 83 N.W. 212; Schaffner v. Young, 10 N.D. 253, 86 N.W. 733; Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244, 78 P. 417, 3 Ann. Cas. 239; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. 617; Wilcox v. Tipton, 143 Ind. 241, 42 N.E. 614; Kuhn v. Port Townsend, 12 Wash. 605, 29 L.R.A. 445, 50 Am. St. Rep. 911, 41 P. 925; Frace v. Tacoma, 16 Wash. 69, 47 P. 220; People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 625, 84 P. 207; Whittaker v. Venice, 150 Ill. 195, 37 N.E. 241; People ex rel. Cooney v. Peoria, 166 Ill. 517, 46 N.E. 1075; McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U.S. 177, 43 L.Ed. 939, 19 S.Ct. 644; Glaspell v. Jamestown, 11 N.D. 88, 88 N.W. 1023; State ex rel. Walker v. McLean County, 11 N.D. 360, 92 N.W. 385; Ward v. Gradin, 15 N.D. 653, 109 N.W. 57; Ogle v. Belleville, 238 Ill. 389, 87 N.E. 354; Trumbo v. People, 75 Ill. 561; Nunda v. Chrystal Lake, 79 Ill. 311; Geneva v. Cole, 61 Ill. 397; People ex rel. Huck v. Newberry, 87 Ill. 41; Alderman v. School Directors, 91 Ill. 179; Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224; People ex rel. Goedtner v. Pederson, 220 Ill. 554, 77 N.E. 251.

An information in the nature of quo warranto is the proper proceeding to try the question of the legality of the annexation of territory to a municipal corporation. 2 Bailey, Habeas Corpus & Special Remedy, p. 1305; 32 Cyc. 1424; People ex rel. Adams v. Oakland, 92 Cal. 611, 28 P. 807; People ex rel. Cooney v. Peoria, 166 Ill. 517, 46 N.E. 1075; People v. Maynard, 15 Mich. 463; State ex rel. Childs v. Crow Wing County, 66 Minn. 519, 35 L.R.A. 745, 68 N.W. 767, 69 N.W. 925, 73 N.W. 631; State ex rel. Crow v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S.W. 758; State ex rel. Brown v. Westport, 116 Mo. 582, 22 S.W. 888; State ex rel. Brown v. McMillan, 108 Mo. 153, 18 S.W. 784; East Dallas v. State, 73 Tex. 371, 11 S.W. 1030; State ex rel. Fullerton v. Des Moines City R. Co. 135 Iowa 694, 109 N.W. 867; State ex rel. Harmis v. Alexander, 129 Iowa 539, 105 N.W. 1021; State v. Independent School Dist. 29 Iowa 264; People ex rel. Warren v. York, 247 Ill. 591, 93 N.E. 400; McCain v. Des Moines, 128 Iowa 331, 103 N.W. 979; People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 625, 84 P. 205; State ex rel. West v. Des Moines, 96 Iowa 521, 31 L.R.A. 186, 59 Am. St. Rep. 381, 65 N.W. 818; Stuart v. School Dist. 30 Mich. 69; Mendenhall v. Burton, 42 Kan. 570, 22 P. 558; St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; State ex rel. Hoya v. Dunson, 71 Tex. 65, 9 S.W. 103; Harness v. State, 76 Tex. 566, 13 S.W. 535; Butler v. Walker, 98 Ala. 358, 39 Am. St. Rep. 61, 13 So. 261; State ex rel. Cole v. New Whatcom, 3 Wash. 7, 10, 27 P. 1020; State ex rel. Anderson v. Tillamook, 62 Ore. 332, 124 P. 641; Velasquez v. Zimmerman, 30 Colo. 355, 70 P. 420; McDonald v. Rehrer, 22 Fla. 198; State ex rel. Walker v. McLean County, 11 N.D. 356, 92 N.W. 385; Ward v. Gradin, 15 N.D. 649, 109 N.W. 57.

The validity of the incorporation can be determined only in a suit for that purpose in the name of the state, or by some individual under the authority of the state, who has a special interest. Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244, 78 P. 417, 3 Ann. Cas. 239; School Dist. v. Fremont County, 15 Wyo. 73, 86 P. 24, 11 Ann. Cas. 1058; Keech v. Joplin, 157 Cal. 1, 106 P. 222; Reclamation Dist. v. McPhee, 13 Cal.App. 382, 109 P. 1106; Metcalfe v. Merritt, 14 Cal.App. 244, 111 P. 505; Constitution v. Chestnut Hill Cemetery Asso. 136 Ga. 778, 71 S.E. 1037; People ex rel. Wies v. Bowman, 247 Ill. 276, 93 N.E. 244; People ex rel. Vaughn v. Welch, 252 Ill. 167, 96 N.E. 991; School Dist. v. Jones, 229 Mo. 510, 129 S.W. 705; Stout v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 142 Mo.App. 1, 125 S.W. 230; School Dist. v. Young, 152 Mo.App. 304, 133 S.W. 143; O'Brien v. Schneider, 88 Neb. 479, 129 N.W. 1002; Prankard v. Cooley, 147 A.D. 145, 132 N.Y.S. 289; 147 A.D. 935, 132 N.Y.S. 1143; Ex parte Keeling, 54 Tex. Crim. Rep. 118, 130 Am. St. Rep. 884, 121 S.W. 605; Ex parte Koen, 58 Tex. Crim. Rep. 279, 125 S.W. 401; Coffman v. Goree Independent School Dist. Tex. Civ. App. , 141 S.W. 132.

Neither are such proceedings subject to collateral attack. Hatch v. Consumers' Co. 17 Idaho 204, 40 L.R.A.(N.S. ) 263, 104 P. 670; Ogle v. Belleville, 238 Ill. 389 87 N.E. 353, 143 Ill.App. 514; People ex rel. Warren v. York, 247 Ill. 591, 93 N.E. 400; Johnson v. Indianapolis, 174 Ind. 691, 93 N.E. 17; Meffert v. Brown, 132 Ky. 201, 116 S.W. 779, 1177; Powell v. Scranton, 39 Pa. S.Ct. 488; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Bratcher, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 10, 118 S.W. 1091; State ex rel. West v. Des Moines, 96 Iowa 521, 31 L.R.A. 186, 59 Am. St. Rep. 381, 65 N.W. 818; Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244, 78 P. 417, 3 Ann. Cas. 239; Albia v. O'Harra, 64 Iowa 297, 20 N.W. 444; Powell v. Greensburg, 150 Ind. 148, 49 N.E. 955; Schriber v. Langlade, 66 Wis. 616, 29 N.W. 547, 554; Sage v. Plattsmouth, 48 Neb. 558, 67 N.W. 455; People v. Smith, 131 Mich. 70, 90 N.W. 666; People ex rel. Quisenberry v. Ellis, 253 Ill. 369, 97 N.E. 697, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 589; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 4th ed. art. 43a; Blackwell v. Newkirk, 31 Okla. 304, 121 P. 270, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 441; Clement v. Everest, 29 Mich. 22; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wilson, 33 Kan. 223, 6 P. 281; Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506, 37 P. 514, 777; Reclamation Dist. v. Turner, 104...