Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-07-09
SUPREME COURT.
An Important Tax Sale Decision-Duties of
Asslgnees.

An Important Tax Sale Decision-Duties o
Asslgnees.
The following decisions were fled in thi
court yesterday:
The State of Minnesota, ex rel. Edward
Davenport. administrator. etc., VS.. Frank 8
Mcdonald, county auditor of Hennepi1
county, respondent.
Opinion-The officers of Hennepin county
omitted to institute the proceedings provided
by Oh. e. laws of 1874 to ''enforce the payment
of taxes which became delinquent in and prior
to the year 1878" To remedy this the legisla,
ture passed CHI. 2, laws of 1876, which, after
receiving the omissions, provided that the
auditor of the county should file on the third
Monday in May of that year the list provided
in the act of 1879, and that lin all other re.
respects proceedings in the matter of enforcing
the payment of said taxes SO delinquent shall
be as provided for in said act.''
Pursuant to this judgments were obtained
against the lands delinquent, and on December
lat, 1875, the sales under it were had. Among
other lands that claimed by the relator aa
belonging to the estate which he represents
was sold and bid in by the State, and the GER
Aug. 81, 1876, one Charles Hitchings paid into
the county treasury the amount required by
law to entitle him to assignment from the
State, and such assignment to him was there
upon executed by the county auditor.
Sec. 81, Oh. 6, laws 1877, required every per-
son holding a tax certificate to present the
same to the county auditor at least ninety days
before the expiration of the time to redeem,
and requires the auditor to issue notice of the
time when the redemption period will expire
to the person in whose name the land was as
sessed, and provides for serving that notice.
The purpose of this was apparently to make
the lapse of the right to redeem depend on the
presenting the certificate and the service Of the
notice.
Hitchings did not comply with this act. The
relator claims that Ivy reason of the omission,
the right to redeem has not expired, and APP
plies for mandamus to compel the respondent,
auditor of Hennepin county, to give him the
certificate requisite to enable him to make the
redemption.
The claim that there is still right of re-
demption issbased on two propositions:
First-That Oh. z, laws 1876, under which
this sale was had, authorizes in Hennepin
county only, the proceedings in the matter of
enforcing the payment of said taxes SO delin-
quent, as provided for in oh 2, laws of 1874.
That proceedings to enforce the payment of
taxes terminated with the sale of the laud
consequently there was authority in the
auditor to assign to Hitchings, and the title
under the tax sale remains in the State.
If this were so, there is no reason why sec.
81, oh. 6, laws of 1877, if applicable to sales
other than those under Oh. l, laws of 1874, OF
which act the act of 1877 purports to be an
amendment, should net apply to this case.
There can be no doubt, however, that all the
provisions of ch 2, laws 1874 as we'll as those
provided after as before sale. are within the
meaning of Oh. z, laws of 1S75-proceedings in
the matter of enforcing the payment of taxes.
Their purpose u.s. as is indicated in the title OF
the act, to enforce such payment and bring the
amount of the taxes, penalties, interest and
costs into the treasury. The provisions in re-
gard to redemption and the assignment of the
certificate are for this purpose. They are not
merely for the protection of the owners. Any
person, whether he have any interest in the
lands or not, may redeem or take an assign.
ment. It is immaterial to the State who pays
the amount due so that it comes into the treas
ury. and all that the act requiree either for q
redemption or assignment is the amount due
for taxes, penalties interest and costs.
The assignment to Hitchings was therefore
valid. 1t was made prior to the passage of Oh.
6, laws 1877.
The legislature could not by any act subse-
quent to that assignment impair to any extent
the right acquired by the assignee That right
was the fee simple of the lands subject to re-
demption as provided in the law under which
the tax sale was made.
Section 81, Oh. 6, laws 1877. could not be ap-
piled to case where the right under the sale
vested in any person other than the State prior
to its passage without violating the constitu-
ton. The right to redeem had expired before
the relator applied to the auditor for a certi-
cate.
The writ is quashed.
GILLFILLAN, G. j.