State ex rel. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford v. Scott

• Decision Date: 20 May 1904
• Docket Number: 13,844 - (116)
• Citation: 99 N.W. 799,92 Minn. 210
• Parties: STATE ex rel. NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD v. HUGH R. SCOTT and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

99 N.W. 799

92 Minn. 210

STATE ex rel. NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD v. HUGH R. SCOTT and Another

Nos. 13,844 - (116)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 20, 1904

Alternative writ of mandamus issued from the district court for Hennepin county directed to Hugh R. Scott as auditor and David C. Bell as treasurer of that county, requiring them respectively, to certify and accept the amount necessary to effect a redemption of certain land from a tax sale. Frank E Byers, as holder of the certificate of sale, intervened. The case was tried before Harrison, J., who made findings of fact and as conclusion of law found that relator was entitled to a peremptory writ. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, intervenor appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Redemption from Tax Sale.

The requirement of section 1654, G.S. 1894, that the amount for which land is sold on a tax sale shall be stated in the auditor's notice of expiration of redemption, is mandatory, and must be strictly construed to protect the rights of the redemptioner. State v. Nord, 73 Minn. 1, applied and followed.

Notice.

Where such notice states a substantially smaller sum than the amount of the tax judgment, though the error is apparently for the benefit of the redemptioner, it is of no avail to enforce forfeiture of his interest in the property.

John F. Byers, for appellant.

Oppenheim & Hunt, for respondent.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

This appeal is from a judgment for mandamus to the auditor and treasurer of Hennepin county, directing the former to deliver relator his official certificate stating the true amount necessary to be paid to make redemption from a tax judgment on an improved city lot in Minneapolis, and to the latter requiring that officer to accept and receive such sum when tendered for that purpose.

The jurisdiction of the court to grant this relief is questioned, but in sustaining relator's claim we need take no further time than to refer to the cases in this court which have either sustained or recognized this means of relief as appropriate. State v. Halden, 62 Minn. 246, 64 N.W. 568; State v. Nord, 73 Minn. 1, 75 N.W. 760; State v. Peltier, 86 Minn. 181, 90 N.W. 375.

The facts found by the trial court disclose that relator held a mortgage on the property for $3,000. The owners in possession neglected to pay the taxes, there was a valid sale therefor, and judgment duly entered for $38.95 on March 21, 1900. At the sale in May following, owing to competition among bidders, the property was struck off to C.W. Chase for $50, or $11.05 more than the judgment. The owners made no redemption. Appellant Byers succeeded to the rights of the purchaser, and intervened. At the proper time, on the request of intervenor, a notice of expiration of redemption under section 1654, G.S. 1894, was furnished by the auditor, and duly served on the owners.

The sufficiency of this notice presents the only question which it is necessary to consider on this appeal. The material portion reads as follows:

The above described piece or parcel of land was sold for the sum of $50, that the amount for which the same was adjudged to be sold in the above described tax judgment was the sum of $38.95, and that the records of my office show the purchaser of the same at said sale paid the sum of $11.05 in addition to the said sum of $38.95 and that the said sum of $11.05 will be used to reduce the amount required to redeem said piece or parcel of land from said sale, and that the total amount required to redeem said piece or parcel of land from said sale, exclusive of the costs to accrue upon this notice, is the sum of $50 and interest on the sum of $38.95 at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the said 8th day of May, 1900, to the day such redemption is made, subject however to the reduction in the sum of $11.05 as aforesaid, making the net amount required to redeem the sum of $38.95 and interest as aforesaid.

The only inference to be drawn from this involved statement is that the owner of the property may redeem for less than the full amount for which the land was bid in at the sale, and which was evidently so stated to recognize and effectuate a custom, which had been adopted by the auditor and treasurer of returning to the purchaser the excess between the judgment and the amount for the owner's benefit, whereby the person having the right to redeem was to be credited with $11.05 on the judgment less than the amount which the state should receive. This...