Sperry v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 25 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 207,46 N.W. 328
• Parties: SPERRY v GOODWIN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 207

46 N.W. 328

SPERRYvGOODWIN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where in a notice of the expiration of the time of redemption from a tax-sale the property in question is correctly described as appearing on the tax records of the county, and according to the plat of the town or city, or a well-known subdivision thereof, in which the same is in fact situated, and which plat has been duly recorded, and the notice appears to be issued by the auditor of the county in which the property is situated, held, a sufficient description for the purposes of such notice, though the county and state do not further appear as a part of the same.

2. Where the property is bid in by the state, and afterwards assigned to a purchaser under Gen. St. c. 11, § 89, the sum paid by such purchaser is “the amount sold for,” to be inserted in the notice.

3. It is not necessary that the notice should state in whose name the property is assessed, but it must be directed to the party to whom it is assessed when the notice is issued; but it is not fatal to its validity that it also contain the name of the person to whom it was assessed when the tax was levied.

4. Variance between the published notice and the one served in this case held immaterial.

5. Published list held sufficiently definite in respect to the names of the owners of the delinquent lands, and also the year for which the taxes were delinquent.

6. The affidavit of publication also held sufficient to show that the list was duly published in the newspaper designated by the county board.

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

C. J. Bartleson, for appellant.

Paige & Hastings, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

In proceedings to enforce payment of the delinquent taxes for the year 1878, the premises in controversy were bid in for the state on the 18th day of September, 1879. On the 1st day of October, 1880, the defendant purchased and procured an assignment from the state of all its right and interest in the land, in pursuance of chapter 11, § 89, Gen. St. The defendant in June, 1888, served notice of the expiration of the time of redemption. No redemption having been made, she claims to have acquired a valid tax-title under her state certificate of assignment. The trial court found that all the tax proceedings prior to and including the assignment were valid, but that the notice of the expiration of the time to redeem above mentioned was not in compliance with section 121, c. 11, Id., and was therefore invalid. Referring to the notice as set forth in the record, it is objected (a) that the land is not sufficiently described; (b) the amount for which it was sold is not accurately stated; (c) the person in whose name the land is assessed is not stated, and it is not directed to the proper parties; (d) the published notice is not a copy of the original.

1. It will be noticed that the formal description “subdivision or section,” placed at the head of the notice, is “St. Anthony City, lot 5, block 45, year tax levied 1878.” The notice by the auditor of Hennepin county recites that the land was sold pursuant to a tax judgment entered in the district court, county of Hennepin, state of Minnesota. The plaintiff's complaint shows that the land in question is in the county of Hennepin, and that the plat of St. Anthony City, in which the lot in question is situated, is on file in the office of the register of deeds in that county. No one owning or having any interest in the property in question could be misled or fail to understand the location of the...