State ex rel. Slingerland v. Norton

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CANTY
• Citation: State ex rel. Slingerland v. Norton, 59 Minn. 424, 61 N. W. 458 (Minn. 1894)
• Decision Date: 14 December 1894
• Parties: STATE EX REL. SLINGERLAND v. NORTON, COUNTY AUDITOR.

59 Minn. 424

61 N.W. 458

STATE EX REL. SLINGERLAND

v.NORTON, COUNTY AUDITOR.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 14, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where there is a condition precedent to the accruing of a cause of action, and it is in the power of the plaintiff to perform that condition, the statute of limitations, by analogy, applies, and will commence to run as soon as the proper time to perform the condition arrives, and when performance is thereby barred it will prevent the cause of action from ever accruing.

2. The purchaser at a tax sale was entitled, under section 155, c. 11, Rev. St. 1866, to refundment when such sale was “declared void by a judgment of court.” The action in which such judgment was rendered was commenced 23 years after such sale. Held, the holder of the tax title could have performed this condition precedent by bringing such an action himself, and his right to refundment was barred; that the limitation to be applied by analogy to the performance of this condition precedent is not the 6-year limitation, which would be applied to the cause of action for refundment when it accrues, but the 15-year limitation, which applies to actions for the recovery of the possession of real estate; and, if such tax sale is not declared void by a judgment in an action commenced within 15 years after the time to redeem from such sale expires, the right to refundment is barred, whether the real estate is held adversely by either party, or is vacant during such 15 years.

Appeal from district court, Dodge county; Thomas S. Buckham, Judge.

Petition by the state of Minnesota on relation of Tennis S. Slingerland against George A. Norton, county auditor of Dodge county, for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant to draw his order in favor of relator upon the county treasurer for a specified sum in repayment of sums paid under a void tax sale. From a judgment in favor of relator, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Samuel Lord and Robert Taylor, for appellant.

S. T. Littleton, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in a mandamus proceeding, adjudging that a writ issue ordering the respondent, as county auditor of Dodge county, to draw his order in favor of relator upon the county treasurer for a certain sum in repayment of certain sums paid the county on four tax sales which have been declared void by the judgment of the court, as provided in section 155, c 11, Rev. St. 1866. The proper amount was paid into the county treasury, as payment in the first of these four void tax sales, June 4, 1866, and as payment in the last on June 6, 1870. Said section 155 was in force during all this time, but has since been repealed, and all subsequent legislation providing for the repayment of the sums so paid has been repealed. But the trial court held that the provisions of said section 155 became a part of the relator's contract, and that any subsequent repeal assuming to take away his right to refundment would be unconstitutional; citing Fleming v. Roverud, 30 Minn. 273, 15 N. W. 119. The appellant concedes that the position of the trial court is correct in all respects, except that he should have held the claims barred by the statute of limitations, which he pleads in his return to the writ. It was stipulated, for the purposes of the trial, that the taxes for which the void tax sales were made, were duly assessed on the land in question. By sections 142 and 151 of said chapter 11, the lien of the state for the tax was transferred to the purchaser at the tax sale, with the right to enforce that lien against the land. But the statute of limitations runs against the right to enforce such a lien in six years. County of Redwood v. Winona & St. P. L. Co., 40 Minn. 512, 42 N. W. 473;Mower County v. Crane, 51 Minn. 201, 53 N. W. 629. It is contended by appellant that, by permitting the statute of limitations to bar his right to enforce this lien, the relator was guilty of laches, which should be held to bar his right to recover from the state the amount paid it. We cannot agree with counsel. Such a limitation on his right to refundment cannot be reasonably implied. Nearly one-half of the six-year period of limitation had run before the time to redeem from the tax sale expired. If the owner redeemed, there would be no occasion to enforce the lien. If the owner did not, the holder of the tax title would have only about three years left in which to ascertain that his title was defective, and proceed to enforce his tax lien. Said section 155 provides that “when a sale of any lands as provided in this chapter, is declared void by the judgment of court, *** the money paid by the purchaser at such void sale shall be refunded to him out of the county treasury, on the order of the county auditor.” It is not a condition precedent to refundment that the holder of the void tax title shall first attempt to enforce his lien for the taxes, and it cannot be held that he is guilty of laches in failing to enforce it in so short a time.

It is further contended by appellant that relator is guilty of laches in failing for so long a time to have his right to refundment determined. It was...