St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-16
THE LAND is TAXABLE.
Some of the Old Winona & st. Peter
Grant Goes on the List.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
A Grist Of Legal Business That tile
Courts Ground 0ut---Grand 3Tg
Jury Doings. A.

Inc supreme court yesterday handed
in several decisions. Among them was
the case of the Winona Improvement IL
Land company against Judge B.
Weber. Of the Ninth district. The COM
pany protested against the lands in
question appearing in the delinquent
tax list. The. court below decided
against the company, when an applied
ton was made to Judge Weber that he
should certify to the proceedings in his
court, and he declined to grant the -ap-
plicatlon. The company then applied
TO the supreme court for a writ of man
damus to compel the judge to certify to
the proceedings. Another attempt was
made to get the matter before the su-
preme court on writ of certiorari, which
was successful. The case is one in
which the old Winona & st. Peter rail
road transferred certain lands to the
WInOna IL st. Peter Land company. An
effort was made by the railroad COM
pany to retain the title to the lands.
thereby keeping them off the tax list
BY the decision of the court to-day the
lower court is sustained and the land
Will have to be placed on the list and
taxed as other lands are. The syllabi is
as follows:
State, OF Minnesota, ex rel. the Winona
and st. Peter Land Company, relator.
VS.. B. F, Weber, district Judge of the
Ninth judicial district, respondent.
SyllabuS-As sec ton so, chapter II,
General Statutes of 1878, provides for
the court which tries proceedings to en-
force the payment of taxes upon real
estate to certify to this court state
ment of facts and its decision only eff
IN It's opinion the point is of great pub
lie Importance or likely to occur fire.
quently," mandamns will not lie to COM
pei it to so certify. Under the constitu-
tlonal provision of section 2, article 81,
giving this court appellate jurisdiction
In all cases, both in law and equity,
the rights of the parties in a judicial
proceeding is subject to review by this
court, and if the statute gives no other
mode for bringing the record here,
the writ of certiorari may is
sue" So it may issue upon tax
Judgment if on proper application the
court below declines to certify under
the statute. A unit of certiorari to the
district court may be directed to the
Judge of that court where there is but
one. When railroad company to
which lands are granted by the state to
aid IN the construction of its road
PuNII iatAiuo ~ NC HUH
until ''SOld and cOnveyed''-haS sold
the lands and received the considera-
ton so that it retains no lien upon nor
actual interest in them, though it re-
tains the naked legal title only as a
trustee for the purchaser, it has .'soId
and conveyed" them within the mean
ing of the eXempting clause, following
State VS.. Winona & st. Peter Railroad
Company, q Minnesota, 472. In such
case the effect in this particular of the
contract and the status of the lands las
to taXability are not affected by the fact
that controversy between the parties
to the contract as to the quantity and
specific tracts sold by it arose and had
to be settled by the Judgment of the
court. The statute of limitations does
not apply to proceedings to enforce pay
ment of taxes. Taxes for several years.
regularly assessed and levied and de-
llnquent, but omitted from the delin-
Quent lists for the proper years, filed
with the clerk of the court. may be in
cluded in such delinquent lists for
subsequent year. Decision affirmed.
GILFILI.AN, q. J.
handed down, the syllabi being as fol-
lows: -i
The Lake Superior Land Company,
respondent, VS.. Thomas p. Emerson
ct al, appellants.
Syllabus-AS the title to the soil
under the low water mark in our nav
lgable lakes is in the state, the deed of
the owner of the abutting shore, pur-
porting only to convey the soil under
the water below the low water mark, is
imperative. Riparian rights belong
and are incident to the abutting shore,
and cannot be severed and transferred
onart from thnir oh a. l,,,
III gross. A grantee of the abutting
shore may maintain an action against
the grantee-frOm the same grantor-in
prior deed purporting to convey the
soil under the water to remove the
cloud upon his riparian rights created
by such deed. Affirmed.
GILFILLAN, C. j.
Cyrus Schwab, appellant, VS.. Thomas
G. Ripley, respondent.
SyllabuS-A deed is not executed
until delivery; therefore, although
signed and sealed on Sunday, yet if it
is not delivered until a succeeding sec
ular day it is valid. Judgment reversed
and Judgment for plaintiff ordered.
VANDERBURGH. J.
Lewis A. Normandin ct al, appellants,
VS.; Safemaker ct al, respondents.
ny iuO lilC IlOEtSdSSG Ill
chattel mortgage that has been paid.
the property remaining in the posses
sion of the mOrtgagor, threatens to
foreclOse and sell the property, is no
ground for an injunction. Order af-
firmed. GILFuLAN, c.. j,
Martin Olson, respondent, VS.. The st.
Paul. Minneapolis IL Manitoba Rail
way Company, appellant.
Su1Iat1c l,oId -, n.
sustain findings of fact. The role i'm
Hogenson against this defendant. 81
Minnesota pa, in respect to the right of
one land owner to gather surface waters
on his own land and by means of
bitches turn them upon the land of an
other, followed and applied.
GILFILLAN, C. J.
Charles 2. Hazeltine, appellant, VS..
Peter L. SwenSon. respondent
SyliabuS-The evidence in this case
examined and held not sufficient to
warrant the verdict. Order reversed.
COLLINS, j.
W: T. Liggett, respondent, VS.. E. &C.
Himle. appellant.
Syllabus-The principles stated in
certain paragraphs of the opinionJ,.o
this court in Geib VS.. REYNOLDS. 35th
-nlhiloooIt,' ool, iielu dppiIcaole ana de-
cisive in this action. Order overrulfng
demurrer affirmed Collins. J.
John Kraus, respondent, VS.. Thomas
Murphy, appellant. e
Syllabus-NotWithstanding the owner
of building has procured and filed the
bond of his contractors, provided forsi
section of chapter 80, general statutes,
1878. and posted the notice therein men
finnnH a c1h-annfroOfnr 10
lien upon the premises if. as matter
of fact such notice was not posted upen
or about the premises during any part
of the time which said snh=contractnr