White v. Thomas

• Citation: 98 N.W. 101,91 Minn. 395
• Decision Date: 29 January 1904
• Docket Number: 13,759 - (207)
• Parties: WILLIAM G. WHITE v. WALLACE W. THOMAS and Others
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

98 N.W. 101

91 Minn. 395

WILLIAM G. WHITE v. WALLACE W. THOMAS and Others

Nos. 13,759 - (207)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 29, 1904

Application to the district court for Ramsey county by William G. White to have the title to certain land registered. Upon the report of the referee, summons was issued directed to Wallace W. Thomas and others, including the City of St. Paul, which answered claiming liens upon the premises by virtue of eight assessments for local improvements, certificates of sale under which were held by the city. Plaintiff's title was based upon certain tax sales. The case was tried before Kelly, J., who made findings of fact, and as conclusion of law found that plaintiff was entitled to registration subject to the eight liens of defendant city. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, and from a judgment entered pursuant to the findings plaintiff appealed. Modified.

SYLLABUS

Taxes and Assessments -- Priority.

The lien of the city of St. Paul for local assessments is subordinate to the lien of the state for all taxes which have been or may be levied upon the same property under the general laws of the state, without reference to the time when the state lien accrued. White v. Knowlton, 84 Minn. 141, followed.

Purchase from State.

When the lien of the state becomes the subject of private ownership, the purchaser from the state takes it with the state's right of priority over all liens of the city for local assessment existing at the time of his purchase, but it is otherwise as to liens attaching after his purchase.

William G. White, pro se.

James C. Michael, for respondent.

OPINION

START, C. J.

The appellant herein made application to the district court of the county of Ramsey to register under Laws 1901, p. 348 (c. 237) his title to a lot in the city of St. Paul. Such proceedings were had upon the application that the court adjudged that the appellant was the owner in fee of the lot, subject to eight local assessment liens thereon in favor of the respondent, city of St. Paul, and that the title be so registered. The appellant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial, and also from the judgment.

The facts of this case are not disputed. The appellant's grantor became the owner in fee of the lot on October 12, 1898, by virtue of a tax judgment and a sale thereof on May 7, 1895, for the taxes thereon for the year 1893, and on April 1, 1903, he conveyed the lot to appellant. His grantor did not pay the taxes due on the lot for the year 1897, and a tax judgment was rendered therefor on March 21, 1899, and the lot sold by virtue of the judgment on May 2, 1899, to third parties, who on April 2, 1903, assigned their certificate to the appellant. Notice of the expiration of redemption from the sale was duly issued, which, with due proof of service thereof, was filed in the office of the county auditor on June 13, 1903. No redemption was made from this sale. The eight local assessment liens of the city in the aggregate amount to $169.03, but each attached on a separate date, as follows: The first on May 8, 1895; the second, October 14, 1895; the third, December 23, 1895; the fourth, December 26, 1896; the fifth, June 13, 1898; the sixth, January 3, 1899; the seventh, December 28, 1899, and the eighth, March 4, 1901.

1. It is the claim of the appellant that, under the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Paul (Sp. Laws 1887, pp. 348, 352, c. 7, subc. 7, §§ 34 and 47,) as construed by this court in the case of White v. Knowlton, 84 Minn. 141, 86 N.W. 755, the several liens of the city here in question for local assessments on the lot are all subordinate to the liens of the state for the taxes of 1893 and 1897, which were the basis respectively of the tax judgments and sales through which he claims title. Hence the liens of the city are cut off by his tax titles.

Counsel for the city, except as hereinafter stated, concedes that, if the construction given to the charter provisions by the court in White v. Knowlton is adhered to, the claim of the appellant logically follows. He, however, insists earnestly but respectfully that the decision in that case was wrong and should be overruled, for the reason that the charter provisions should be construed as providing that the lien of the state for general taxes and the lien of the city for local assessments should be concurrent, and that a sale under either should not devest the other.

If this suggested construction of the charter is even a permissible one, it should, in the interest of substantial justice, be adopted by the court, and White v. Knowlton overruled. We have, therefore, in view of the great importance to the city of St. Paul of the question, carefully reconsidered it. The result, however, of a further investigation of the question is that White v. Knowlton was correctly decided, and, further, that the charter provision in question cannot be construed so as to make the lien of the state for general taxes and that of the city for local assessments concurrent, without resorting to strenuous judicial legislation, which is unthinkable. The case of White v. Knowlton was one solely between private parties.

The defendants claimed title to the lot, which was the subject-matter of the action, by virtue of a tax judgment and sale based upon the lien of the city of St. Paul for a local assessment which attached February 14, 1895, judgment therefor was rendered June 29, 1895, and the land sold by virtue thereof on November 4, 1895. The plaintiff claimed title to the land by virtue of a tax sale thereof by the state on May 7, 1895, which was based upon a judgment rendered March 21, 1895, for the general taxes for the year 1893, the lien of which attached May 1, 1893. The sole question presented by those facts for the decision of the court was as to which party held the paramount title. The defendants claimed they did, because their title was based upon a tax lien which was last in time, and therefore first in right. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed that he held the paramount title by virtue of the special charter provisions to which we have referred. Neither party even suggested that the liens were concurrent, but each maintained that his own was the paramount lien.

The court held, construing the charter provisions, that the lien of the city for local assessments is...