Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. (Gilson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1887
• Citation: 31 N.W. 692,36 Minn. 366
• Parties: RUSSELL v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. (GILSON, PETITIONER.)
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

36 Minn. 366

31 N.W. 692

RUSSELLvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. (GILSON, PETITIONER.)

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 31, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The publication of the delinquent tax-list and notice, as required by statute, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the entry of any valid judgment against the property mentioned in the list; following Eastman v. Linn, 26 Minn. 215,2 N. W. Rep. 693.

The omission of the county board to designate the newspaper in which the publication shall be made, or the publication in any other than the one designated, will render any judgment entered thereon void.

The Minneapolis Tribune Company published two newspapers, one called the “Minneapolis Daily Tribune,” and the other the “Minneapolis Weekly Tribune.” The county board designated the Minneapolis Tribune as the paper in which the delinquent list and notice should be published. The publication was made in the Minneapolis Weekly Tribune. Held, that there was no sufficient designation of the newspaper, and no legal publication of the list and notice.

Appeal from district court, Anoka county.

On August 13, 1883, in proceedings for the condemnation of certain land in Hennepin county by the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, the commissioners appointed by the court to assess the damages to said land filed their award. From this award appeals were taken by the railway company and plaintiff, Russell, which appeals were thereafter tried, and a judgment ordered for plaintiff. The said land being claimed by both Russell and Gilson, the petitioner in this action, the court ordered the amount of the judgment to be paid into court. June 17, 1885, Gilson obtained an order to show cause herein why the amount of said judgment should not be paid to him. On the hearing and trial pursuant to this order, petitioner offered evidence showing a tax judgment against said land, rendered September 1, 1875, for delinquent taxes of 1874, and the subsequent assignment of the tax certificate to petitioner. There being no redemption from the sale, petitioner claims title thereunder. Russell, respondent herein, offered evidence to show that the court had no jurisdiction to render such tax judgment. The important facts in this connection are stated in the opinion. Judgment was ordered for respondent, Russell. Petitioner, Gilson, appeals.

Smith & Reed, for respondent, Russell.

Shaw & Cray, for petitioner, Gilson, appellant.

MITCHELL, J.

The view we take of this case renders it unnecessary to consider most of the questions discussed by counsel. The appellant claimed title to certain real estate, and now claims the proceeds in the hands of the court, under a tax title acquired under a tax judgment and sale in 1875 for the tax of 1874. The statute required that the newspaper in which the delinquent list and notice was to be published should be designated by resolution of the board of county commissioners, a copy of which resolution, certified by the county auditor, should be filed in the office of the clerk of the court. Gen. Laws 1874, c. 1, § 112.

Unlike “order of publication,” the purpose of this resolution was not merely to direct how the notice and list should be served, but the resolution was itself intended as notice to the tax-payer, so that by examining it he might be able to ascertain with certainty in what newspaper to look to see whether any proceedings had been commenced against his land as...