Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-10
SUPREME COURT.
FULL TEXT OF Dsc1s1oss FILED.
NJ Board q County Commissioners a t1l
oousty Of 6tsa,1ss u. And,sv J. SmttA.

~ Board u County Oon.n.iastos.vs II tie
ooustv Of Stsa,ns u. Andrsv J. SmttA.
OPINION.
This Il land tax case, certified to this court |
under section 100, oh. l, laws 1874. Section 10
requires the county auditor to file in tho Office
of the clerk of the district Court, list of the
delinquent taxes upon real estate within his
county. Section Ill. as amended by section
Is, oh. S, laws 1875, requires the clerk within
twenty days thereafter, to deliver to the
county auditor copy of the list 80 filed, and
attach theretoa notice, which may be substan-
TALLY in the following FORM Among other
things the form contains direction in the
name of the State, to all persons interested in
the lands listed, and statement that the list, a
copy of which is attached, has been filed with
the proper clerk, and then proceeds as follows,
viz: Therefore you and each Of you are here
by required to file in the Office of said clerk
within twenty days after the last publication
of this notice your answer in writing, setting
forth any objection or defence you may have
to the taxes or any part thereof upon any
piece or parcel of land described in said list
in to or on which you have or claim any es-
in default thereof judgment will be entered, -
etc. Section liz of CHI. l, laws 1874, as amend
ed by section 26, oh S, laws 1875 requires the
| county auditor to cause said notice and list to
be published for three weeks in q newspaper.
Section 113 provides that when the last pub
| LEGATION shall have been made the notice shall
be deemed to have been served and the court
| to have acquired full and complete
! jurisdiction to enforce against each piece or
parcel of land in said published list described,
the taxes upon it then delinquent as to bind
every estate. right, title, interest, claim or
lien, In law or equity, into on such piece or
parcel of land of any person, company or cor
| poration, and such jurisdiction shall not be in
any way affected by any error in making the
| list filed with the clerk, nor by any error, ir-
regularity omission in the assessment or levy
of the taxes or in any other proceedings prior
to fling the said list, nor shall the jurisdiction
be affected except as to the piece or parcel as
J to which such error may occur by any mistake
\ in copying the list for publishing, nor any
mistake in publishing said list, nor by any
mistake in the amount Of tax in such publish
ed list appearing against any piece or parcel of
land therein described We have
quoted this section at length for
the purpose of showing that the jurisdiction
of the district court depends upon the publ
cation of notice substantially in the form
prescribed by section Is, laws 1875, and
amendments. This is apparent from the ex-
press provision found in the first sentence OF
section l13, which gives jurisdiction upon the
publication of such notice. 1t is also apparent
from the enunciation Gin the last sentence OF
the section) of the errors which will not affect
such jurisdiction, the want of such publication
not being enumerated as one of them
In the case at bar the notice published re-
quired the answer setting forth objection OF
defence to the taxes to be filed within ten days
after the last publication Of the notice insteac
of within twenty days as provided in the form
prescribed by the statute.
This mistake Gas we presume it to hav,
been) probably arose from an error in the tex
of section %, laws 1875, as foune
; in the officially published volume of the SEES
sion laws of that year, The error consists il
the use of the word ten in place of twenty
office of the secretary of state. Argument can
not be required to show that that is a su5sta1s
tial part Of the prescribed form of notice which
is intended to inform persons interested of tn,
time within which the statute requires them t.
interpose objections and defenses to taxes O.
conceive of any part which is more substantial
or important. 1t follows that the notice il
, the case was not substantially in the form
prescribed by statute, and that therefore th
district court failed to get jurisdiction to en-
, force against the defendant s land to which tn
present proceeding relates the taxes delinquent
upon it so as to bind his interest therein.
The defendant appeared in the district cour
specially and for the purpose of interposing al
, objection to the jurisdiction of the court, o,
account OF the lnsufhclency OF the notice II
the respect above indicated.
This objection was specified in writing
signed by the defendant, and was presente,
upon motion to dismiss the proceedings
This was proper way to take the objection
a After stating his objection to the jurisdiction
the defendant proceeded in the same document
as follows, viz: IF such objection to tn
jurisdiction be overru1ed, the undersigned
further, as separate defense in said matter
, objects, DC, setting up defense upon tn
merits.
This is interposed as an answer onl
e upon the condition that the objection
! to the jurisdiction is overuled.
. The powers of the court are not called int
action for any purpose except to decide upo
its jurisdiction until the objection to jurisdic
r ton is disposed Of. SO as to make the filing Q
the answer to the merits full appearance
within the doctrine of Curtis VS. Jackson 2
jurisdiction within the rule of Board of CONS
ETC., We. Jessup, % Mimi, $50. Under the pro
t visions of the statute (sections lit, ct SEQ.
r which provide for trials in cases of this kin,
only after answers filed, it is difficult to see hoy
\ party can avail himself of an objection t.
r the Jurisdiction except in some such way a
8 was followed in this case. We think, however
that as matter of practice
, would be more workmanlike t.
separate the objections to jurisdiction iron
the answer to the merits, by putting each in
document by itself, though the putting of then
in one document, as in this case, is not a fata
defect.
; The judgment is reversed, and the distric
court directed to dismiss the proceedings.
> | Filed Jnne 90 1878. REppy T