Reimer v. Newell

• Decision Date: 09 October 1891
• Parties: REIMER ET AL. v NEWELL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 237

49 N.W. 865

REIMER ET AL.vNEWELL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 9, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The meeting of the board of county commissioners of Hennepin county held, pursuant to chapter 205, Sp. Laws 1877, on the first Monday of January, is “their annual meeting in January,” at which they are authorized to designate the newspaper in which the delinquent tax list shall be published.

2. A resolution passed in January, 1884, designating the newspaper in which “the real-estate delinquent tax list for the year 1883” should be published, construed as meaning the list of delinquent taxes for 1883, and not of taxes for 1882, which had become delinquent in 1883.

3. A certified copy of the resolution, designating the newspaper in which the delinquent tax list shall be published, is all that is required to be filed with the clerk of the district court. It is not necessary to file a copy of the proceedings of the board of county commissioners showing the vote by which it was passed, and the validity of its passage.

4. Evidence held to justify a finding that the newspaper in which the delinquent list was published was the identical one designated by the board of county commissioners, notwithstanding that, after the designation and before the publication, it had changed its name from the “Daily Minnesota Tribune” to the “Minneapolis Daily Tribune.” The invalidity of section 22, c. 10, Laws 1881, does not affect the validity of the provisions of section 11 of the act.

5. The notice of the expiration of the time of redemption was issued by the auditor of Hennepin county, and described the land as “lot 8, block 4, of Penniman's addition,” without mentioning the state, county, or city, but stating that it had been sold pursuant to a tax judgment of the district court of the county. There was no other addition or subdivision of land in Hennepin county platted or known by any name embracing the word “Penniman's,” except “Penniman's Addition to Minneapolis,” which was commonly known to and designated by the inhabitants of Minneapolis and the general local public simply as “Penniman's Addition.” Held, that the notice sufficiently described the property.

6. The return of the deputy-sheriff of Hennepin county in this case held sufficient to warrant the county auditor to publish the notice.

7. Under the provisions of Gen. St. c. 11, § 87, a mortgagee may acquire tax-title to the mortgaged premises as against the mortgagor, where he is neither legally nor equitably bound to protect the property against the taxes for which the sale is made.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HICKS, Judge.

Action by Annie Reimer and Wilhelmina Zeiger against Stanford Newell. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. C. Judge and Sawyer & Sawyer, (Selden Bacon of counsel,) for appellants.

Daniel Fish, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

As the defendant prevailed in the court below solely upon the strength of a tax-title acquired by sale of the premises in controversy under a judgment for the taxes for the year 1883, it is only necessary to consider the points made by the plaintiffs against the validity of that title.

1. The board of county commissioners of Hennepin county designated the newspaper in which the delinquent tax list should be published at their meeting held on the first Monday in January, 1884, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 205, Sp. Laws 1877. It is claimed that under the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 72, requiring the board of county commissioners to make this designation “at their annual meeting in January or at a meeting of said board in March,” this ought to have been done at a meeting held on the first Tuesday of January, as provided by Gen. St. 1878, c. 8, § 102. Our view is that the act of 1877 is, as to Hennepin county, a substitute for, or amendment of, prior statutes fixing the times for meetings of the board of county commissioners, and consequently that the only meeting which they are required to hold in the month of January is that held on the first Monday of that month, which is therefore “their annual meeting in January.”

2. The resolution of the board designated the “Daily Minnesota Tribune” as the newspaper in which “the real-estate delinquent tax list of Hennepin county for the year 1883” should be published. It is urged that this means the list of taxes for the year 1882 which had become delinquent in 1883. It seems to us that this is not a fair or reasonable construction of the language of the resolution. Perhaps a careful lawyer would have chosen language more explicit and less open to criticism, but we think the average man, honestly seeking for information, would have no difficulty in understanding that the resolution referred to the taxes of 1883 that should remain delinquent, or, as it is often expressed, the list of delinquent taxes for the year 1883. Force is added to this construction of the language of the resolution from the facts that the list of delinquent taxes for 1882 was required to be published in 1883, and that the designation of the newspaper in which it should be published had to be made by the county board in January or March of that year, after which that duty, if not previously performed by the board, devolved on the county auditor; also that January, 1884, was the proper time at which to designate the newspaper in which to publish the list of taxes for 1883, which should become delinquent in June, 1884.

3. A copy of the resolution itself, designating the newspaper in which the publication of the delinquent tax list is to be published, certified to be such by the county auditor, is all that the statute requires to be filed with the clerk of the district court. Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 72. The claim that the proceedings of the board, showing the time of passage, the persons by whom passed, and the validity of its passage, should also be filed, finds no support in either the language or purpose of the statute.

4....