St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-23
IMPORTANT TAX CASE.

! A tax decision of considerable inter
est is in the three cases of the state
against r. j. Baldwin, in which the
| decision of the trial court is modified.
/ From the conclusions of the majority
! of the court Judge Canty dissents. Ine
| case is one in which an attempt was
made to enforce the payment of taxes
! in Hennepin county. The syllabus in
j which several important points in the
| tax laws are ruled upon follows: In
| the mater of the enforcement Of taxes
| in Hennepin County, State of Mime
sofa, respondent, vs.. R. j. Baldwin, ap-
! pellant; in the matter of the enforce
ment of taxes in Hennepin County,
| State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. R.
j. BALDWIN, appellant; in the matter Of
| the enforcement of taxes in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, respondent, VS.. R.
J. Baldwin, appellant.
| Proceedings were commenced in Jam
uary 1887, to enforce delinquent taxes ON
| certain real estate for the year 1885, to
gether with those for certain prior
years added thereto in one given sum
each year The land owner seasonably
interposed an answer denying that any
taxes had been assessed for any year
except for 1885. The register of actions
kept by the clerk of court contained an
entry in the proceeding Case tried
July %, 1885,
In July, 1893, pursuant to Laws of
1893, chapter $50, there was filed a list
of taxes delinquent for 1889 and prior
years, which included the same tract,
against which were charged taxes for
the same years sought to be enforced
in the former proceeding. This pro-
ceeding is still pending. The proceed
ings commenced in January, 1887, were
brought on trial, and judgment
whole aDO11nt nena1tia and
costs claimed against it, with interest
cm the same at l per cent per month
from March 21, 1887, the date on which
judgment for delinquent taxes is re-
quired to be entered in case no an
swer is filed.
Held:
First-That the entry in the register
of actions was of itself no evidence
that the proceedings had been tried.
Second-That the time that had elaps-
ed between the commencement of the
proceedings and the time they were
brought on for trial did not operate
as a discontinuance or entitle the land
owner to a dismissal at the trial.
Third-The provisions of General
Statutes 1894, section 1885, as to the
time when answers filed in tax proceed
ings shall be tried are directory and
not mandatory.
Fourth-The commencement of pro-
ceedings in 1899 to enforce the collection
of taxes for the same and other years
against the same tract did not of itself
operate as an abandonment or dis
missal of the prior proceedings.
Fifth-Laws of 1885, chapter 2, sec
ticn % General Statutes 1894, section
1,63D, being purely remedial and mere
ly giving a remedy to enforce existing
rights and obligations is to be constru-
ed as applying to taxes levied (but pre-
vented from being collected) prior to
it's passage as well as to those levied
thereafter.
Sixth-If the failure to state the
amount of taxes for each year Sepa-
rately was an omission or irregularity
it was not one which went to the ju
risdiction of the court, and it was
waived by the failure of the land owner
to set it up in his answer as a de-
fense or objection to the taxes.
Seventh-A tax never bears interest
as interest or as damages except by
force of statute. The statutes of this
state do not provide for charging in
terest on taxes until after sale on the
Judgment, but on the contrary, clearly
contemplates that all that shall be
added to the original tax prior to sale
are the prescribed penalties and costs,
The fact that the land owner interposes
an answer which is overruled on the
trial or that the public officers neglect
to bring the issues raised by answer on
for trial and determination within the
time contemplated by statute does not
authorize charging interest on the de-
1inquent taxes and including it in the
Judgment.
Order for judgment modified.
Mitchell, J.
OTHER DECISIONS.
International Trust Company, appel