State v. Koochiching Realty Co. (In re Koochiching Cnty. Taxes)

• Decision Date: 04 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21782.,21782.
• Citation: 146 Minn. 87,177 N.W. 940
• Parties: In re KOOCHICHING COUNTY TAXES. STATE v. KOOCHICHING REALTY CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

146 Minn. 87

177 N.W. 940

In re KOOCHICHING COUNTY TAXES.STATE

v.KOOCHICHING REALTY CO.

No. 21782.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 4, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Koochiching County; W. S. McClenahan, Judge.

Proceedings by the State to enforce payment of taxes in Koochiching County against the Koochiching Realty Company. Judgment for the realty company, and the State appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Duties of a mixed legislative and judicial or quasi judicial character may be conferred or imposed upon the courts by appropriate legislation without infringement of the Constitution.

The provisions of section 2108, Gen. St. 1913, granting to the property owner the defense of overvaluation in real estate tax assessments, are not unconstitutional as a delegation of exclusive legislative or administrative duties to the courts, nor because the same defense is not extended to personal property assessments.

It is not necessary to entitle the property owner to interpose such defense that he first apply to the board of equalization; the statute does not so provide. Franz Jevne and Frank Palmer, both of International Falls, and A. L. Thwing, of Grand Rapids, for the State.

Kerr, Fowler, Schmitt & Furber, of Minneapolis, and Harris Richardson, of St. Paul, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

The Koochiching Realty Company, a corporation, is the owner of numerous tracts of land situated in the county of its name, including town lots as well as acreage, which were duly assessed for taxation for the year 1914. The tax proceedings resulted in the usual tax judgment, which was rendered and entered on March 23, 1916. Thereafter, in July, 1916, the company made application to the district court, under G. S. 1913, § 2111, to open the judgment with leave to answer and defend in the proceeding. The motion was granted, and the company by answer interposed in defense that the assessment of the various tracts of land involved was partial, unfair, and unequal and in excess of the true and actual value thereof. Before the trial of the action, the taxes against the same property became delinquent for the years 1915, 1916, and 1917. The company made the same objection to the assessments for those years, and by stipulation of the parties each thereof was included in the issue thus raised. The cause duly came on for trial, and as the result thereof the trial court found that the assessment of all and singular the tracts of land involved for each of the years stated was excessive, and that the defense to the taxes in that respect was sustained by the evidence. The true and actual value of each tract was found by the court, and a reduction of the tax to correspond therewith was ordered accordingly, Judgment was so entered, and the state appealed.

The defense of unfair and unequal real estate assessments, in resistance of the tax judgment provided for by our taxation procedure, has been available to the property owner in this state for many years; in fact, since the revision of the Tax Code in 1874. Chapter 11, § 79, G. S. 1878. The statute giving the defense was first construed in County of Ottertail v. Batchelder, 47 Minn. 512, 50 N. W. 536, where it was held that to authorize a reduction of the tax complained of in any particular case it must be made to appear that the assessment was fraudulently made, or so grossly excessive as to justify the conclusion of a ‘demonstrable mistake of fact’; following the rule applied in local assessment proceedings by municipal corporations. State v. Board of Public Works, 27 Minn. 442,8 N. W. 442, and State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 62, 11 N. W. 133. But the defense so given was subsequently rendered of no practical value to the property owner, if it was not in effect wholly taken away, in State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283, 73 N. W. 970, and State v. West Duluth Land Co., 75 Minn. 456, 78 N. W. 115, the decision in the last of which was handed down in February, 1899, and brought from the Legislature at the 1902 Special Session, an amendment of the statute by the insertion therein of a clause to the effect that, in cases where real property ‘has been taxed at a valuation greater than its real and actual value,’ the court on the defense being made and sustained by the evidence ‘may reduce the amount of the tax and give judgment accordingly.’ The amendment is embodied in the revised section of the statute as it appears in G. S. 1913, § 2108. The former statute authorized a reduction only where it was made to appear that the assessment was unfair and unequal. The amendment was a distinct change and evidently intended to overcome the decisions referred to above. It explicitly authorizes a reduction in all instances of overvaluation, and must be deemed as abrogating anything to the contrary found in the decisions construing the former statute.

1. The state contends that the statute in its amended form is unconstitutional, as an attempt to confer on the courts authority and jurisdiction over matters of purely legislative or administrative cognizance. The contention is not sustained. No doubt the general subject of the assessment and equalization of taxes is administrative in character, not delegable to the courts, except to the extent stated in the Batchelder Case, a rule applied in the judicial review of other administrative questions. Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458, 166 N. W. 1077;State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities Commission, 176 N. W. 759. And although the proceedings under the statute are of that character, and are not changed by the fact that the assistance of the judiciary is invoked in their final completion (City of...