New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1886-07-21
MINNESOTA ii STATE NEWS.
sanother 1mpor.ant Tax Title Dec1 ,1o !

victims. 1t declared unconstitutional
section %, chapter 10 OF the General Laws
II OF 1881. This was an amendment repeal
ing the provision Of the previous law which
required that the tax buyer should give
notice to the owner OF the fee
demption expired. This lett, however,
a very important question unsettled. The
law left standing by the decision is that
all persons" havin: tax certificates shall
give this notice. Now, many OF these tax
certificates were held by the state, and the
question was whether the certificates held
by AL persons" included those held by the
state. The matter has been argued before
the supreme court, ana lawyers and Others
interested in the question have eagerly
waited the decision which was given, in the
case OF Nelson appellant. vs. the Central
Land company, respondent, which is
to the effect that the titles
bld IN by the state come under the same cat
eegory IN this respect as those bought by
private persons, the court taking the broad
ground that the statute is to be construct
ed Literally and beneticialy. it's object be-
ing to give the landowner time to redeem
,Iter the service of the required notice.
The full text OF the opinion will be found
in. the court record The syllabus is asfol-
lows
ANDREW Nelson, appellant. vs.. The Cen
tral land Company, respondent. Judg-
ment Douglass county. Syllabus:
In order to make a sheriff certificat tie OF
sale upon Il mortgage foreclosure evidence
OF the regularity Of the proceedings under
chapter ll2, General Laws 1888, such GER
tlticate must in matters OF substance con.
form to the requirements OF the statute
Upon the facts disclosed by the record,
hela, that no proper foundation was
laid for the introduction OF parol evi.
dence OF the contents of a written in
'strument. The term tax certificate" as
used in chapter 81, section &, Laws, 1877,
Z which requires notice OF the expiration OF
the time of,redemption to be served, etc.,
is equally applicable to the certificate Of
sale prescribed by section 81, and the GER
tlficate OF assignment provided for in Sec
ton 80, chapter IL, General Statutes,
1873. The object OF this provision in
the act OF 1877 was to make the
lapse OF the right OF redemption de-
pend upon the service OF the notice, and
) to extend the time for the exercise OF such
land a specified time thereafter. Following
Merrill & bearing 32 MINI. The burden
rests upon party asserting title in fee by
ylrtue.of such tax certificate to prove that
ssuch notice has been duly served The
point that the decision OF the trial court
is not supported by it's findings may be
raised for the first time in this court.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
VANDERBURGH, Judge.
ANOTHER DECISION
The supreme court filed another opinion
having bearing on the general subject OF
tax titles, in the case OF Easton VS. The
county Auditor OF Douglas county. The
sopinioni lis as follows:
The complaint shows that at the tax
sales in Fillmore county in the several
years, 1864, 1865 and 1866 certain lands
were sold for delinquent taxes, one John.
sson purchasing at the sale OF 1864 and the
plaintiff purchasing at the other two sales:
that no redemption was made, and that
the proper tax deeds were executed to said
purchasers; that johnson convened by
1Auitclaim deed to the plaintiff; thatin 1885
in an action in the district court against
this plaintiff judgment was duly rendered
ssetting aside and declaring void all such
tax sales and deeds on the ground that
the lands at the time OF the assessment
ana levy OF the taxes was not subject
to taxation. The object OF the action is to
recover from the county the amounts paid
at the tax sales, with interest. Fly a de-
murrer to the complaint the right to recov-
FER is contested. Sec. 8, OF Gu. l, OF the
laws OF 1878 [Sec. 81, Oh. II, Gen. Stat.
1871, as amended by Oh. 10, OF the Jaws
eof 1881. unquestionably entities the plain.
till to the reimbursement here sought, ii
that statute as applied to such cases is
valid The power OF the legislature to
make provision for reimbursementsi in such
cases as was done by the statutes cited
was recently determined in Coils vs..
Commissioners OF Washington County,
~ n W. R. 497, the decision
controls this case. The opinion in that
case indicates the distinction between that
Case and state VS.. Foley, 80 MINI. $50, re.
lied upon by the respondent. The point is
made that the conveyance by quitclaim
deed Il ON johnson to this plaintiff did not
'enhtle the latter to recover the amount
paid by johnson as the purchaser at the
tax sale OF 1864. AS we continue the allie
CATIONS OF the complaint, the question is
whether by a mere deed of quitclaim from
johnson to the plaintiff in 1875, thelatter
became entitled to reimbursement OF
the price paid by johnson upon the
tax sale in 1864. The statute
above cited confers the right OF reimburse.
ment upon the purchaser at the tax sale,
'or the party holding his right" The legal
right to repayment exists only by force OF
the statute, and we seek only to determine
what was intended by it. We think that
twas the purpose OF this law that when u
tax sale should be adjudged void, and
thereby the supposed title or interest OF
the purchaser or his assigns in respect to
the law should DE defeated, the price paid
to the state, with subsequent taxes paid,
should be repaid to the purchaser or to the
person to whom his interest in the land
should have been transferred II this is the
proper construction OF the statute, this
plaintiff and not his grantor, Johnson, is
entitled to repayment. We embrace this
opportunity OF correcting m;sstatement
in the case OF state VS.. Foley supra. 1t is
there said that sec. "a OF CHI. IL, Revised
Statutes 1851, remained unaffected by
subsequent legislation until 1866, when it
was repealed. Our attention has since
been called to the fact that that chapter
was also repealed by sec. 10, oh. l, General
Laws OF 1860. Our conclusion being that
the second, third and fourth causes OF &C.
ton stated in the complaint show right
pf recovery, the order sustaining the de.
murer thereto is reversed.
DICKINSON, J.
A Railroad Conference Called.
The following has been issued from the
office OF the Minnesota railroad and ware
house commissioners