St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-10-27
Defends the Cnurf.


In Thursdays GLOBE there was published
an article on the ''Kipp VS.. Collins tax-title
case, signed Sufferers" on which some edi-
torial comment was made. I have heretofore
noticed in your columns several articles of a
like tenor, emanating, suppose, from the
same correspondent, which like this, most
unfairly and unjustly criticise the SUI
preme court for it's decision in this
now somewhat famous case. In November,
1857, man by the name of William H. Ben
ton became the owner of l20 acres of wild
land situated in Anoka county. Benton was
a nonresident, and subsequently to the year
1859 had paid no taxes whatever on this land,
which was the subject matter of the suit,
In the year 1871, James Collins, farmer,
whose lands adjoined the lands in
question, purchased the 120 acres at
a tax sale and paid the taxes, penalty
and interest on said land, which for ten or
eleven years had been accommodating against
it, and thereafter and to this day has paid all
taxes assessed against the same, except for the
year 1888. In March, 1888, Sylvester Kipp
and Orvin Kipp, who are probably ten times
told the heaviest dealers in tax titles in Min
nesota, procured a quit-claim deed from
William H. Benton and wife of this
100 acres of land, and caused the
same to be recorded in the Of
fee of the register of deeds of Anoka county,
March 20, 1888. and to enable them to get
their deed recorded, paid the taxes for one
year then due on said land, but which need
not have been paid until the 1st of the fol-
lowing June. On the same day, March %,
1885, S. & o. Kipp as plaintiffs and attorneys
in person, issued summons against Mr..
Collins and commenced an action for eject
ment against him for this land.
Mr.. Collins. as soon as the Kipps claim was
made known to him, promptly offered to
abandon all claim to the land if they would
r. %AOA hn had mad
land with legal interest. Collins, up to this
time, had never cultivated the land or re-
ceived any benefit from it, The Kipps paid
10 attention to his offer and pressed their suit.
Acting under my advice Mr.. Collins had al
lowed this land to become delinquent for
taxes for the year 1874, and purchased the
land at the tax sale which took place in Septem
Der, 1875. 1 took charge of the defense in
this case, and in such defense relied largely
upon this 1875 sale, which sale was as regular,
l think, as any that ever took place
in this counry. But the fact that Collins had
for many years been the unquestioned owner
of the land, so far as tax. title could confer
ownership upon him, and that for more than
twenty years he had paid the taxes on the
same, fully appeared before both the dis
trict and supreme court. The case was
tried in the district court before
his ho-or, NJ. B. Koon, as able and fair
minded a judge as ever adorned the bench in
this state-and was very fully argued by
counsel. He promptly decided the case in
favor of Mr.. Collins. The Kipps appealed
from the Judgment rendered against them in
the district court, to the supreme court and
in support of their appeal presented very
able and exhaustive brief and also argued
the case fully before the court.
The supreme court, in rendering the opinion
affirming the Judgment of the lower court,
although fully aware of the merits and equi-
ties of the case. did not deem it necessary to
go into them at length, but simply found that
the sale of Is 10 was made pursuant to the
provisions of the laws of the state
of Minnesota, and as logical con-
sequence, that Collins title was valid.
Had they decided otherwise Collins would
have lost all the money which he had for so
many long years been in good faith paying
into the county treasury and the Kipps would
for the sum of 81 per acre (the amount il ap-
pears from the Benton decd they paid for the
land), have become the owners of the land,
and Collins would have been subjected
to the payment of a heavy bill of costs.
So you see, Mr.. Editor, that Sufferers got
the cart before the horse when he claimed
that tax title shark had robbed a ''poor
farmer of his farm; and that he must have
been very poorly advised relative to the facts
in the case, when be declares that the DE
cision was wrong and opposed to all princi-
pies of right and Justice
The above are the simple facts in the case,
and can be verified by the inspection of the
record. and it appears to me that any fair
minded person, if appriSed of them, will
cheerfully concede that the supreme court,
in its decision in this case, not only did its.
sworn duty as the interpreter of the laws
of the state, but also an act of simple justice
to "Poor Farmer" as well.
In conclusion / would further remark that
the Legislature should see to it that the laws
for the collection of taxes be not too harsh
and oppressive, and if such exist, that
they be either modified or repealed: but SO
long as the law stands as law upon
our statutes, let us refrain from abusing
our courts for sustaining it. The people OF
the state have no use for an independent
judiciary that will feel at liberty to violate
its oath of Office. subvert the laws of the
land and assume both legislative and judicial
functions. W. HAMMONS.
AnOk9 Oct %