State v. Meehan

• Decision Date: 03 June 1904
• Parties: STATE v. MEEHAN et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

92 Minn. 283

100 N.W. 6

STATE

v.MEEHAN et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 3, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Red Lake County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by the state of Minnesota against Patrick Meehan and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A certain contract for the sale of logs construed. Held, that it was executory, and title to the logs did not pass to the purchaser at the date of execution of the contract, and they were properly assessable for taxation purposes against the vendor on May 1, 1899.

2. That portion of chapter 246, p. 285, of the Laws of 1899, providing that the court shall hear objections to and determine the validity of personal property taxes at the first term after same become delinquent, is directory. Davis, Kellogg & Severance and Robert E. Olds, for appellants.

F. A. Grady, Co. Atty., for the State.

DOUGLAS, J.

This is an appeal by P. & J. Meehan from the judgment of the district court of Red Lake county entered against them in the matter of the collection of personal property taxes payable in said county for the year 1899. On the 1st day of April, 1899, Patrick and James Meehan entered into an agreement to sell to John Daly a large amount of property owned by them situated in Red Lake county. This agreement included (with other property actually delivered) approximately 13,000,000 feet of white pine, Norway pine, spruce, and tamarack saw logs, which were duly assessed as their property in said county on May 1, 1899. So far as material, it is as follows: ‘Said P. and J. Meehan agree to sell and deliver to said corporation all their white pine, Norway pine and spruce, tamarack saw logs consisting of about thirteen million feet more or less to be delivered during the sawing season of 1899 into mill pond in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, said logs are marked as follows: * * * for the sum of six and 75/100 dollars per M. feet log scale to be scaled at mill by some competent men to be mutually agreed upon. Scalers work may be tested from time to time and if unsatisfactory to either party hereto change to be made as soon as practicable to some man or men to be mutually agreed upon. In case parties are unable to agree upon scalers the surveyor general of this district of Minnesota is to appoint scaler or scalers to scale said logs. Logs to be scaled by Scribner's Decimal log rule and each of the parties hereto to pay one-half expense of scaling. Reports to be made monthly or when desired to each of the parties thereto. Payments for said logs to be made as follows: All logs scaled during each month to be settled for the first of the month following by giving a note running six months with interest at 5% per annum.’

The logs were scattered along the Red Lake river and tributary streams. During the summer of 1899, P. & J. Meehan drove substantially all the logs in question across Red Lake and down Red Lake river into a mill pond in Thief River Falls, Minn., and delivered them to John Daly. They were scaled and paid for from time to time, and subsequently the registered log marks were transferred. The trial court found the property was owned by P. & J. Meehan on the 1st day of May, 1899, and entered judgment for the amount of the tax extended on the taxbooks for the year 1899.

The validity of the tax depends upon the construction to be given to such contract. If the title to the logs passed to the purchaser upon its execution, the tax is void; otherwise it is valid. The test applicable to contracts where payment of the purchase price and delivery are deferred is stated in Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422, 50 N. W. 471, as follows: ‘The rule is that, when the chattels are clearly designated and appropriated to the contract, are ready for immediate delivery, and the terms of sale, including the price, are explicitly given, there is an executed contract, and the title to the property, as between the parties, passes to the purchaser even without actual payment or delivery.’ The rule applicable...