St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-28

confer upon the court jurisdiction generally
over lands returned by the county auditor as
delinquent, whether or not so, in fact, and in
proceedings against such lands to conclu-
sively determine the question of delinquency
as well as others as against all the world? or
is the fact of delinquency the essential condi-
ton of jurisdiction, without which as to any
particular parcel ali the proceedings are
coram-non judice? The discussion would
naturally involve (a) the question of the
jurisdiction of the court (b) the remedy, or
in what manner the tax judgment may be
avoided in case of non-delinquent lands. The
filing of the list is the initiation of the pro-
ceedings in reen in the district court against
the lands therein described. Back of it, how
ever is the jurisdictioual fact lying at
the foundation of the proceedings that
the taxes are unpaid and the land
delinquent The statute contemplates an
accurate return and the rest properly verified
will primarily be presumed to be correct.
The object of the judicial proceedings is not
to try the fact whether the auditor has made
correct list, but to force the collection of
unpaid taxes and to determine the sufficiency
of any objections that may be made BY owner
TO the collection of sucn taxes by reason
of substantial omissions or irregularities
which render such unpaid taxes mot the pro-
ceedings) void. The making OF this record is
no part of the judicial proceedings. Care
must be taken to distinguish between the
jurisdictiona'
FAC OF DELINQUENCY
1.-THE actual existence or continuance of the
lien of the estate), and the assertion or evil
dence of it as shown by the list and also the
assertion of claim of Indebtedness to the
state such as in a personal action might be
adjudged conclusive upon default. 1t is OBJ
viously the object of the statute, in its present
form at least, that lands actually delinquent,
and none others, should be the subject of
these proceedings. Delinquency is assumed
through all the proceedings. and hence the
court proceeds accordingly against each par
Gel of land on the list, but
the actual validity Of the judgment will
depend upon the ultimate fact. In brief it is
the fact of delinquency that gives the court
jurisdiction and the verified list or return is
the evidence of it upon which the court acts
as the basis OF its proceedings. Lands not
delinquent cannot lawfully be included in the
auditors return and are not necessarily
bound irrevocably by the proceedings. The
defendant is not remedyless, but the judg-
ment may be summary set aside on this mo-
ton upon a proper showing. 1t is foreign to
the purpose of the state in authorizing the
taxpayer to proceed TO collect and enforce
taxes which have been PAID. As these pro-
ceedings profess to relate TO delinquent taxes
only, man who has paid his taxes is not
bound to take notice Of them. The law
should, therefore, afford him relief; a judg-
ment therein, notwithStan ling the provisions,
allowing parties to come in and answer
Delinquency is a matter Of jurisdiction. and
not strictly matter of defense. If, as re-
spondent contends, delinquency was one of
the issues rendered by the state then, of
course, the land owner would be expected to
answer in pursuance of the general notice,
and il would appear singular and altogether
unnecessary tnat the legislature should nave
added the special clause at the end OF section
70, permitting the defenses OF pay 10 ent and
BIZ exemption. Parties who are not in de-
fault are
NOT BOUND TO WATCH
the proceedings and interpose answers.
The rights of tue land owner 10
be relieved from tax Judgment
void because the land was previously dis
charged from the taxes may be placed upon
the broad ground that if he had fulfilled all
mis- duty to the state nothing which his agents,
the county officers, can do without his Con-
sent can deprive him of his legal rights or
subordinate his equities TO that of the tax
purchaser. Whether in any particular case
his rights might by affected by undue delay
after actual notice as against subsequent
purchasers in good faith involves the appli.
cation of principles and the discussion of
questions not necessary to be considered in
| this case. l think the complaint ought TO be
| held insufficient and the order justifying the
| demurrer reversed.
JUDGE BERRY STILL DIsSENTs.
Judge Berry, in his dissenting opinion,
says:
If we start out with what appears to me to
be the only right idea, viz, that the single and
! controlling purpose Of the tax law is, brlehy
stated. to collect taxes, and that the judicial
! and other machinery employed for this pur-
| pose is merely a means TO an end. think
there is no serious or substantial difficulty i'll
/ reaching the conclusion that delinquency in
| fact is a ''jurisdictiohal prerequisite" OF Il
valid judgu ent. When tax has been once
| paid and is therefore collected, the whole pur-
| pose of the tax law is, as respects the land
| from which that tax was due, and upon which
| it was charged, completely accomplished.
| The owner of the land has done his full
duty and as respects that tax the state has
not and cannot have any further claims
| upon him or his land. l find no difficulty in
| arriving at the conclusion that the jurisdic-
ton conferred upon the district courts in tax
proceedings was intended and is exclusively
confined to cases in which taxes are in part
! delinquent, and does rot embrace any case in
! which taxes are not delinquent because they
have been in fact paid. / have no hesitation
| in saying that the construction put upon the
! law by the majority of the court is correct.
! The law is moustrously unjust, and so much
| of it as furnishes any preteXt for such con-
struction ought to be Immediately repealed.
| In this respect / agree with my brethren,
| Vsnderburgh, Mitchell and Dickinson,
| though as understand the opinion, not with
the chleI 9ustlce. AS tue cohsTuctiOii given
! to the law b. the majority of the court is not
necessary, and works great injustice, 1t ought
not, in my judgment, TO prevail
Judge Wac DOuald's Opinion.
In connection with the two decisions OF
the supreme court in the Chauncey-W ass
tax title case Congressman j. l.. MacDOn-
aid. of Shakopee, made a decision in Sibley
county the week he resigned his district
judgeship which is the reverse OF the SUI
| preme courts opinion. 1t was in the Ben
nett-Kipp case, and the decision was not
made public because political opponents
might have said it was done for political
effect Judge MaeDonald's decision in
brief was that the taxes had to be actually
delinquent so that the case could be brought
within the jurisdiction of the court. AS
! +I,o o,,-,,nr Of tho lind nnnId nrnducn re-