State v. Minnesota & Ontario Power Company

• Decision Date: 23 May 1913
• Docket Number: 17,951 -- (4)
• Citation: 141 N.W. 839,121 Minn. 421
• Parties: STATE v. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO POWER COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

141 N.W. 839

121 Minn. 421

STATE v. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO POWER COMPANY

Nos. 17,951 -- (4)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 23, 1913

The Minnesota & Ontario Power Company appealed to the district court for Koochiching county from a reassessment made by the Minnesota Tax Commission upon its property in International Falls, in that county, under the provisions of Laws 1909, p 343, c. 294, on numerous grounds, one of which was that the tax commission had no jurisdiction to make such reassessment and another of which was that the reassessment was not in fact made by the tax commission or by anyone having jurisdiction to make it. The appeal was heard before McClenahan, J., who made findings of fact and as conclusions of law found (1) that appellant was entitled to judgment that the tax commission did not make any reassessment of appellant's property in International Falls or vacate any assessment thereof made pursuant to law in Koochiching county in the year 1910; (2) that the appeal was sustained and judgment be entered against the state of Minnesota. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, the state appealed. Reversed.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

Reassessment by tax commission valid.

1. A reassessment of certain property made by the state tax commission pursuant to Laws 1909, c. 294, sustained as against certain objections going to the regularity and sufficiency of the proceedings culminating in the same.

Notice of appeal.

2. Notice of appeal from such reassessment held sufficient.

Statutes constitutional.

3. Laws 1907, c. 408, creating the state tax commission, and Laws 1909, c. 294, relating to the procedure looking to reassessments of property thereby, held valid as against certain constitutional objections.

Jurisdiction of district court -- procedure.

4. Where an appeal from a reassessment made by the state tax commission was taken under Laws 1909, c. 294, § 3, by the filing of the prescribed notice of appeal with the county auditor, but the latter failed to certify, with the copy of such notice, a copy of the reassessment appealed from to the clerk of the district court as provided by the statute, the only jurisdiction acquired by such court was to order such copy to be filed or else to dismiss the appeal, but upon compliance with the former, it should determine the appeal on the merits, notwithstanding the entry of a judgment, regular in form and as upon default, after the filing of the notice of appeal but before the trial in the same proceeding and based upon the reassessment.

Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, William J. Stevenson, Assistant Attorney General, and F. J. McPartlin, County Attorney, for appellant.

Harris Richardson, Walter Richardson, and C. J. Rockwood, for respondent.

OPINION

PHILIP E. BROWN, J.

This is an appeal by the state from a judgment entered sustaining the appeal of the Minnesota & Ontario Power Company, in proceedings before the state tax commission wherein a reassessment of the company's property in Koochiching county for the year 1910 was attempted.

The facts are undisputed, and we will here state them sufficiently to indicate the nature of the controversy, leaving other facts and further particularity for later reference when necessary. The board of equalization of the county mentioned fixed the assessed valuation of the real and personal property for 1910. Thereafter, and on August 8, 1910, a verified complaint was filed with the state tax commission to the effect that the real and personal property of the company within the village of International Falls had been grossly undervalued by the county board of equalization as compared with like property in the county and state, so that the assessment for 1910 was grossly unfair and inequitable, the actual value of the company's property being stated as $ 1,500,000, and the equalized assessment being only $ 390,000; wherefore a reassessment of such property was prayed in accordance with R. L. 1905, §§ 854, 858.

On August 23, 1910, the tax commission, acting upon this complaint, appointed one La Rue, a citizen of Ramsey county, special assessor of the village, and authorized and directed him to make a full and fair reassessment of all the real estate and certain specified personalty subject to taxation in said assessment district, and to make return thereof. On August 25, the special assessor filed his oath of office and thereafter made return of the assessment as directed, including as one item thereof the real property of the company here involved and showing an increase in the valuation of the same to the amount of $ 320,000 over the former total valuation as stated in the complaint. On October 26 the tax commission equalized this assessment and adopted a resolution fixing the value of the company's real property, so far as here involved, at $ 690,000, and thereafter filed with the county auditor the assessment as equalized, and on November 26, 1910, the company filed a notice of appeal, a certified copy of which was thereupon filed in the office of the clerk of court.

The appeal was tried by the court, and, at the conclusion of the testimony, the state moved for judgment fixing the valuation at the amount equalized by the state tax commission. The court denied this motion and filed findings in favor of the company, sustaining its appeal and declaring that the state tax commission did not, in the year 1910, make any reassessment of the company's property. Judgment was entered accordingly, and this appeal followed. The company claimed (1) that the acts creating the tax commission and defining its powers are unconstitutional; (2) that the reassessment was void for irregularities in procedure.

1. For convenience and, perhaps, in violation of logical order, we will first take up the more important questions raised as to the regularity of the proceedings resulting in the alleged reassessment; for the statutory mode of accomplishing such result is the main subject of the company's attack. So also, in connection with the discussion, it will clear the way, if we first ascertain generally what defects in tax proceedings are considered to be irregularities as involving merely directory provisions, as distinguished from objections based upon mandatory provisions. It will be found that the necessity of observing this distinction runs through the entire case as it was presented to the trial court, not only in connection with points made by the company, but also as bearing upon the state's objection to the sufficiency of the notice of appeal to the district court, to which we will later advert.

So far as regards the necessity of technical observance and the effect of irregularities therein, there is a well-defined distinction between statutory provisions concerning the steps to be taken in determining the amount of a tax assessment and those relating to the subsequent entry of judgment and the divesting of property rights thereunder. See R. L. 1905, § 914. Said Mr. Justice Jaggard, in State v. Cudahy Packing Co. 103 Minn. 419, 422, 115 N.W. 645.

"The statutory provisions which are intended to guide the conduct of officers in the transaction of public business, so as to insure the orderly and prompt performance of public duties, and which pertain merely to the system and dispatch of proceedings, are construed as directory. The provisions which affect the subsequent collection of the tax, and which are intended for the protection of the citizen by preventing the sacrifice of his property, and by the disregard of which his rights might be affected, are construed as mandatory."

Our reports are replete with like statements and applications of the rule. See Corbet v. Town of Rocksbury, 94 Minn. 397, 103 N.W. 11; State v. Backus-Brooks Co. 102 Minn. 50, 112 N.W. 863; Cassidy v. Souster, 115 Minn. 191, 132 N.W. 292. Statutes designed to add property to the tax rolls are held to be remedial and hence to be liberally construed. State v. Eberhard, 90 Minn. 120, 123, 95 N.W. 1115.

Taking up now the company's main objection to the proceedings which culminated in the reassessment, in order:

a. The statute, Laws 1909, p. 344, c. 294, § 2, relating to reassessments, provides:

"Whenever it shall be made to appear to the Minnesota tax commission by verified complaint or by the finding of a court or of the legislature or either body of the same, or any committee thereof, that any considerable amount of property has been improperly omitted from the tax list or assessment roll of any district or county for any year, or, if assessed, that the same has been undervalued or overvalued * * * so that the assessment * * * is grossly unfair * * * the said commission shall examine into the facts * * * and if satisfied therefrom that it would be for the best interests of the state that a reassessment * * * be made, they shall appoint a special assessor * * * and cause a reassessment to be made of all or any of the real and personal property * * * in such district * * * as they may deem best."

The board acted under this statute in appointing the special assessor. The company claims that no such authority as that here exercised is granted in terms, urging that the words "by verified complaint" as they appear in the act, are limited by the words "of a court" and by the words "of the legislature or either body of the same, or any committee thereof," and hence that a complaint must be made by a court, the legislature, or a committee thereof. The construction suggested is impossible. It not only destroys the sense of the language used, but eliminates an important portion of the statute.

Objection is also made to the sufficiency of the complaint, which was the first of two that were filed and the one upon which the...