Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-08
SUPREME COURT.
DECISION OF CASE FILED JESTER
DAY.
Franklin r. Flint, respondent, Us. Isaac ". Webb
appellant.
OPINION.

To prove failure of the title in reepect to the
premises conveyed by plaintiff to defendant reliance
one Phillips, purporting to grant the premises
which described as slot number twelve [12, in
block number seven III, Rice and I.vine's addition
nesota.n The efficacy Of this deed conveyance
Of this lot is the main question for determination in
this case. Its effect under the statute '.prina
instead of contentng himself with using it for that
purpose the defendant voluntarily and atrmatively
proved the sole authority and all the facts upon its
validity is claimed to depend, and If these are insu
Gent to give it vitality operative conveyance to
transfer the title to the premises in question, it must
fail.
of this character has no application to case where
proof is actually made of all the facts and circum-
stances upon which the tax deed rests for its support
The decd itself in this case recites that in pursu-
ance OF Judgment rendered in the district court Of
Ramsey county, and of order of sale issued
thereon, s. said premises were sold to the
certificate of sale which was issued thereon
to said city, transferred 10 Gustav Wllius,
and by him to Philips, and that the period for re-
dempton having expired, and no redemption having
been made, the said premises were, by said deed,
granted to said Phillips, his heirs and assigns for
ever, in pursuance Of and as therein stated "upon
said city treasurers certificate of sale, No. lit,
issued for sidewalks built nnder M. B. Farrell
tract Of August 22d, 1872. In support Of the deed,
as authority, therefore defendant proved said GER
uhcae of sale the order Of sale, and judgment, to-
gelher with the judgment roll, and all the record
files Herewith connected, containing, among other
things the report of the city treasurer of the de-
linquent assessments, upon which the judgment was
obtained and the order for judgment. He also in
PRODUCED in evidence notice of application for
judgment against similar lots, on account of de-
inquent unpaid assessments for grading certain
streets and laying certain sidewalks, therein specified
together with proof Of construction, service thereof
by publication.
Though this notice, with proof of service was not
in fact incorporated in the judgment roll, nor made
part of the record files Of the alleged proceedings
against the lot IN question; yet 1t was proved as
notice that had ever been served, and the upon
which the court acted in taking cognizance of the
matter and in rendering its Judgment in the premi
ses. The record before contains full copy Of all
those papers and proceedings.
The tax deed purports to convey "lot number
twelve [l2 in block number seven 7]Rice 1rvine's
addition to the city of ST. Paul. Ramsey county, State
of Minnesota" The certf cate of sale states that
the premises offered for sale and sold in pursuance
of the judgment and order of sale issued thereon
were ''lot twelve [12] in block seven ], Rice &
Irvine's addition to South side Of Fourth street, in
the city OF ST. Paul, Ramsey county, State OF Min
nesota. This latter description corresponds with
that contained III the order Of sale, and the judg.
ment itself upon which the order was founded. 1t
appears from the findings and evidence that Fourth
and Fifth streets, in the city of ST. Paul. traverse
Rice Il Irvine's addit on nearly parallel with each
other in general course, east and west, the line
location OF the former being south of the latter and
distinct therefrom one entire tier Of blocks. The
property in question and which is described in the deed
from plaintiff to defendant lot number twelve ~
of block numbered seven ], of Rice and Irvine's
addition to the city of st. Paul, MIMI, according to
the plat thereof is situated on the south side of
Fifth street and adjoining it. Whether the plat of
this addition contains another lot and block similarly
numbered on the south side of Fourth street. but
distinguished from the other by its locality with ref
erence to that street. otherwise Is not disclosed by
either the findings evidence. In the absence of
any evidence upon the subject the contrary cannot
be presumed as the existence of such state of
facts is not impossible improbable to justi
fy any inference Of this kind The two descriptions
ing or as intended to indicate the same
parcel of land. If the land described in the
tax deed aud which was intended to be conveyed by
it, different parcel from that which sold
| under the Judgment and which evidenced by the
certificate of sale, it is clear that the deed null
lily as it made without any authority. The officers
in pursuance of the certificate and for the specific
tract or lot that was mentioned in the
| Judgment and sold underit. If, however, as ap-
pe claims the reference to the certificate in the
deed, and it's recitals, sufficient to identify the
premises, therein described as being the
| those mentioned in the certificate and judgment,
in any way relates to affects the lot which was
granted to the defendant by the plaintiff In both
| the order for Judgment, and in the judgment it's
SELF the property adjudg to be sold, is described
in terms slot II, block 7, Rice Irvine addition,
south side of Fourth street, In order to give the
court any jurisdiction in proceedings of this char
acter the city treasurer is required t. give notice Of
his intended application for Judgment in the
required by statute, and to file with the clerk
! the court report of the delinquent assessments
standing against each parcel tract of land, in
| spect OF which he asks judgment of sale. Such
notice. with proof OF service, by publication where
service is made, he is required to file with his
port. The notice must state the term of court gen.
eral or special and the time and place at which the
application will be made and must ''briefy specify
the respective warrants upon which the application
! will be made, and description of
| the property against which judgment is
desired and request all persons interested attend
at said term These papers the clerk is directed to
l Io1S
Judgments, orders or other proceedings OF the court
IN relation thereto. Upon the filing of said reports
the court is to proceed TO the hearing of the same
| and in objection is made it 'sha pronounc e
Judgment against the several lots and parcels of
land described in said reports for the amount of the
assessment damages and costs due severay thereon.
(Sections So to 80 inclusive, Ch 80 special laws 1871
| as nded by CHI. 2, 1872. 1t would seem, from
| these provisions, that in making up the judgment
Of application for judgment with proof of service
and the report of the city treasurer should const
tute part thereof, and would also to be un
necessary incorporate Herewith any other paper
or record relating to matters occurring prior to the
proceeding in court If, therefore, upon the inspec
ton alone of the judgement in this case, any ques-
reference to its subject matter otherwise while il
| might be permitted to refer to the notice
of application and The report. as proper
plain it's meaning, reference to any other paper for
that purpose, even though improperly made par
of the judgment roll by the clerk would not be al
| lowed.
The omission of the clerk in making up the jude
ment roll in this instance, to file Herewith the motto.
| upon which the court proceeded and rendered it,
Judgment, is unmportant in this case because tn,
defendant has supplied the defect, if any, by his OWL
proofs. Referring then to the report and notice
find this state of facs In the report the descr p
ton of the properly upon which the city treasure
claimed there delinquent assessment on &C
count OF which judgment was sought, correspond
exactly with that contained in the judgment. Tn,
notice Is as follows:
| will e ms RI he ~ d,
and for the county of Ramsey, at the special tern
held Saturday. June 7th, 1873, at the court house. &C.
embraced in different warrants in my hands for tn
collection of unpaid assessments, with interest
cost thereon for (among other hings) sidewalks aie
under NJ. B. Farrels contract of August ed, 1872
on the south side of Fourth street,
The owners and descriptions of lots and real estat
are as folows:"
"Sidewalk under NJ. B. Farrells contract of Au
gust 22d, 1872 Rice and Irvine's ad tion south sid
Of Fourth street; J. G. Ramsey, q feet E. Of W
This comprises all that is claimed to have any ref
ence to the premises in controversy Assuming tina
the numerals IL and refer the former to lot ant
the latter to block the information conveyed thi
notice is that sidewalk had been laid on the soutl
side of Fourth street, adjoining such lot; that
sessment had been levied upon the lot therefor
which had become delinquent; and that judgmen
would be asked against the same to satisfy such as
sessment with costs. No one could infe
therefrom that any sidewalk had been con
structed on Fifth street and that an as
sessment therefor had been made upon AN
property adjacent thereto. Whether therefore
the Judgment is considered alone or in connection
with the report an notice upon which it based
it quite clear that it cannot be construed in an
way relating to affecting the lot on Fifth stree
granted by plaintiff to the defendant.
In view of this conclusion it becomes necessary t,
consider the numerous objections made to the valid
ity of the Judgment for, whether valid or invalid,
furnishes no foundation whatever upon which tn
tax deed in controversy which relates to lot on tn
south side of Fourth street, can be supported. Th
only other question necessary to consider, in orde