St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-04-08
VANDERBURGH, ].
Margaret Coles, appellant. vs.. Tue County
Commissioners OF Washington county, re
an0ndpnt

commissioners or washington county, re-
spondent-
Syllabus-General Laws 1885, chapter 261,
which provides for the reimbursement of
taxes paid by mortgages in certain cases
where such taxes have been or hereafter
shall be adjudRed void. is by it's terms retro
active in its operation inl Is not unconstitu-
tional as applied to cases arising before the
passage OF the act, where in al action to
foreclose mortgage and to enforce a lien
for taxes paid BY the MORTGAGE under Gen.
eral Statutes, chapter IL, section l04, the
court found expresslG the existence OF GER
tain regulations and defects in the tax pro-
ceedings which it held to be fatal TO his right
in the relief sought. Held TO bring the case
within the provisions Of the act in question,
though such taxes were not in express terms
adjudged void. Order reversed.
VANDERBURGH, ].
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE GILFILLAN
dissent as to cases arising before the pass
age of the law of 1885. l think it is invalid
within the principles laid down in State VS.
Foley, 80 Mimi, $50, where the power of the
legislature to provide for the payment of
money out of the public treasury to an indf-
vidual is made TO depend upon the existence
of some obligation, legal or moral, on the part
of the state or county to pay it. In a case
Ike this arising before the act was passed,
there was certainly no legal obligation. In
the case of tax sale, when the state assumes
to sell and the purchaser expects to get aud
pays his money to get the land, If the latter
does not get what he buys and pays for. If
the state GOES not pass to him what it as
sumes to sell and what IL receives his money
for, there may be a moral obligation
to repay: 1t arises out of the contract which
has iailed. But IN receiving payment OF
taxes the state makes no contract; il does not
assume to transfer anything to the
person paving; he does not expect to get
anything Z ON the state, as between
him and the state only effect of the
payment and the only effect expected Is to
discharge the land from it's obligation to the
state. and IL does this whether the person
paying has OF has not any interest in the
land, and whether the taxes have been or
have not been regularly assessed. Any per-
son may pay such taxes and with bis motive
in paying the state has nothing to do. If he
pays because he thinks his interest REQUIRES
IL, or because he thinks he will acquire some
right as against third person. that is his
look out. The state does not assume by re-
ceiving the tax to secure any such advantage
TO him. can see no moral obligation to re-
pay In such case. GILFILLAN, Q. j.
APRIL TERN.
Daniel brighter, appellant. VS.. William
Gieseke, assignee Of the defendant, Kiesling.
Keller Co. ct al, respondents; submitted
and taken under advisement.
Louis A. Avery, respondent, vs.. A. ].
Creigh and Mary G. Creigh, appellants; mo-
ton TO dismiss appeald; denied.
Charles W. Shatto and Charles c. Dennis
partners, respondents, VS.. The Shepard
Manufacturing company, appellant; judg-
ment of court below affirmed.
Peter McMahan, respondent VS.. James c.
Stout, appellant; Judgment affirmed.
Andrew j. Finnegan, appellant, VS.. Mar
garet Noon, administrator OF the estate of
John Noon, respondent, same.