Sanborn v. Mueller

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Vanderburgh, J.
• Citation: Sanborn v. Mueller, 38 Minn. 27, 35 N.W. 666 (Minn. 1887)
• Decision Date: 19 December 1887
• Parties: Walter H. Sanborn and another v. Robert Mueller and Wife

35 N.W. 666

38 Minn. 27

Walter H. Sanborn and another v. Robert Mueller and Wife

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 19, 1887

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Dakota county, to determine the claim of the defendant, under certain tax certificates, to certain land of which plaintiffs claim to be owners. The defendants in their answer claim title under four tax certificates, which are referred to in the opinion as Exhibits A, B, C, and D. The action was tried by Crosby, J., who ordered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal from the judgment and also from an order refusing a new trial. Upon the trial the plat of Jackson & Bidwell's Addition to West St. Paul was offered by the plaintiffs in proving their title, and was received against the defendants' objection that the same was incompetent not having been certified to by the surveyor making the same as required by law.

Exhibit C was in the following form:

"I A. J. W. Thompson, auditor of the county of Dakota, do hereby certify that at the sale of forfeited lands, pursuant to real-estate tax judgment entered in the district court of the county of Dakota on the 15th day of August, 1881, in proceedings to enforce payment of taxes upon real estate delinquent for the year 1879 and for prior years for the county of Dakota, which sale was held at Hastings in said county of Dakota on the 31st day of December, the following described piece or parcel of land situate in said county of Dakota, state of Minnesota, to wit, lots 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 block 21 Jackson & Bidwell's Addition to West St. Paul was offered for sale to the highest bidder, and at said sale I did sell * * *.

"Witness my hand and official seal this 31st day of December, 1881.

"A J. W. Thompson, County Auditor."

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted.

E. St. Julien Cox and W. H. Adams, for appellants.

John B. & W. H. Sanborn, for respondents.

OPINION

Vanderburgh, J. ^[1]

The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners in fee of lots 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10, in block 21, and lots 1 and 2, in block 31, -- all in Jackson & Bidwell's addition to West St. Paul, -- according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of register of deeds, Dakota county, and allege that the defendants claim some right or interest in the property adverse to them under certain alleged tax certificates, which they allege to be invalid, and ask the court to adjudge accordingly, and to quiet their title.

1. The action is brought in this form under Laws 1887, c. 127. It was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to prove anything more than the foregoing allegations. It is not fatal to their right to recover that they failed to prove, or that the court has not found, the further allegations that the lands were unoccupied and vacant; nor is it material to inquire whether the action could have been maintained in this form or for the same relief independently of the statute referred to. The action is well brought, whatever be the character of the possession, -- whether actual, constructive, or adverse, -- and, since the evidence does not appear to have been all returned, the judgment must be affirmed unless the conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact, or unless there are substantial errors in the admission of evidence, duly excepted to.

2. The objection to the plat of Jackson & Bidwell's addition cannot be considered, since the plat is not made part of the record, and is not before us. It will be observed, however, that the defendants also claim by the same description under the same plat, and the lots are so described in the tax certificates referred to. And it does not follow, because the plat does not conform to the statute, or is not duly certified or recorded, that the lands therein described may not be identified. Ames v. Lowry, 30 Minn. 283, (15 N.W. 247;) Reed v. Lammel, 28 Minn. 306, (9 N.W. 858.)

3. The court finds that the time for the redemption under the tax certificates, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, offered in evidence has not expired; that they were issued upon the sale for taxes in 1879, and that no notice of the expiration of the...