Willard v. Commissioners of Redwood County

• Decision Date: 19 July 1875
• Citation: 22 Minn. 61
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN A. WILLARD <I>vs.</I> BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF REDWOOD COUNTY.

22 Minn. 61

JOHN A. WILLARD vs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF REDWOOD COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 19, 1875.

This action was brought in the district court for Redwood county. At the trial before Hanscome, J., (a jury being waived,) the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was taken under advisement, and the case was tried and submitted. Afterwards the judge filed his decision, ordering judgment for defendant on the pleadings, which was entered accordingly, and plaintiff appealed.

M. G. Willard, for appellant.

M. E. Powell and Erwin & Pierce, for respondent.

BERRY, J.

Section 154, ch. 11, Gen. St., as amended by Laws 1869, ch. 23, enacts that "an action to test the validity of the forfeiture of any land to the state, under this chapter, or of the proceeding resulting in such forfeiture, may be brought by any party interested therein, against the county wherein such land is situated, at any time before such forfeited land is purchased from the state; provided, however, that in all actions brought against any county, as authorized by this section, the plaintiff in such action shall pay all costs of such suit."

The present action, which appears to have been commenced in May, 1872, and is properly an action against the county of Redwood, in accordance with Gen. St. ch. 8, § 80, and an action instituted for the purposes mentioned in the above quoted provisions of § 154, as amended, must be taken to have been brought under such provisions for the reason that, independently of them, no warrant could be found for bringing an action of this kind against a county. In other words, the right to bring such an action against a county originates in, and depends upon, the provisions referred to. The action thus authorized is not a strictly equitable action, as being, either in form or substance, such an action as was authorized by the course of practice in courts of equity. It is not necessary, then, that the plaintiff in an action of this kind should bring himself within what are called "the acknowledged heads of equity." The action authorized is a statutory action, in which any party interested is permitted "to test the validity of the forfeiture of any land to the state," under Gen. St. ch. 11, (the tax law,) or "of the proceeding resulting in such forfeiture." The right thus given is the right to test generally and without limitation. It is not restricted to cases in which the forfeiture, or the proceedings referred to, are, upon their face, valid; but it gives any party interested the right to have the question of validity judicially determined, whether the forfeiture and proceedings are, upon their face, valid or void.

The application of these views will dispose of this case. The complaint, in effect, (though very inartificially,) sets up forfeiture of plaintiff's lands to the state, ostensibly under provisions of Gen. St. ch. 11, and proceedings resulting in such forfeiture, and also sets up other facts...