St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-10
HOLDING SALE OF PROPERTY
FOR LOCAL ASSESSMENTS
ILLEGAL.
THE REDEMPTION PERIOD
WAS TOO SHORT AFTER THE
PUBLICATION OF THE NO
TICE.
ENTITLED TO NINETY DAYS.
Property Valued at $4,000 Sold for
$40 Assessment Recovered by
the Owner.

A decision that affects a large amount
of the property sold under judgments
for local assessments was filed by
Judge Kelly in the district court yes
terday. The case under consideration
was that of Sarah A. Bergen against
Marion P. Anderson, involving the
title to some property valued at $4,000,
which was sold unknown to the owner
for local assessments amounting to
only $40. The plaintiff demurred to
defendants answer and the court suS-
tains the demurrer on the ground that
the owner of the property was entitled
to ninety days for redemption after the
publication of the notice. Following is
Judge Kelly's interesting memo
randum:
The question here raised is very i'm
portant, and it is not wholly without
difficulty. The action is brought to
quiet in plaintiff title to real property;
. the answer AYERS title in defendant
by virtue of a certain deed made by the
city of st. Paul to defendant, upon an
alleged expiration of the time for re-
demption from a sale thereof under
judgment on assessment for a local i'm
provement. The question is, did the
by law to determine the right of re-
demption. The giving of such notice
is mandatory, and the charter provis-
ions must be strictly complied with.
''else the issue of a deed would be I'M
authorized"
The city charter, since 1874, from the
inception of the present system of as
SeSSmentS and sales under Judgment
for local improvements, contains spe-
cial and peculiar provisions for re-
deeming land from such sales. They
have remained since 1857 unchanged
and are to be found now on page 49,
Municipal Code 1893, section 49, l re-
fer thus particularly to these mutations
in the law to show that the matter Of
the notice of the expiration of the re-
demptiCn period seems properly to
have been considered as subject to be
treated very carefully, and by a diff
ferent rule from that of the various
other notices required by the charter
to be given. AS this notice, when the
prior proceedings are regular, operates
to absolutely divest title in case of
non-redemption,
IT IS IMPORTANT
that the notice be reasonable. and the
law strictly followed.
The sale took place on Oct. %, 1889,
and the answer pleads that on the 23d
of October 1894, the time for the re-
demption of the real estate in question
eAplIeu, anu thdt on the 10Th OIL july,
1894 the city treasurer gave the notice
thereof and published said notice in
the official paper of the city for six
weeks, viz, On July 1G, %. 80, Aug. 6,
Is, 20 and "a, and that the first publica-
ton was at least ninety days before
said 23d day of October.
The charter, section 129 Municipal
Code, 1893. provides as follows:
1.-The city treasurer shall at least
three months before the expiration of
the time for redeeming any lot or par
eel Of land aforesaid, cause to be pub
lished in the official paper of said city,
once week, for six consecutive weeks"
list of such lands and a notice that
unless redeemed before the day limited
and specified therein they will be con-
yeyed by said city to the purchaser.
l am perfectly clear that this means
that the publication of the list and no.
tee shall befully completed at least
ninety days before the last day for
redemption. Had it said that at least
ninety days before the expira ton of
the redeeming period the treasurer
should cause personal service to be
made, nothing less than personl serv-
ice made at least ninety days before
the last day would suffice. In this stat
ute the character of the services is
changed only in providing that the no.
uce may be printed for six successive
weeks in lieu of being served person.
ally.
1t may be perhaps of some value 10
CONSIDER what object the legisla ture
probably had in requiring so long a
period TO elapSe between the giving
or service of the notice and the last
day of redemption. 1t is reasonable to
suppose that it was to afford the land
owner not only notice, but timely no.
tlce TO enable him to raise the funds
WhereWlth to make redemption. With
the most of men it is not always an
easy matter to make such financial ar
rangements within a short period
ana 1t is significant in this connection
tnat IN 1883. about the time of the de-
clslon of Castor VS.. Merriam. the ridic-
ulously scant time of thirty DAYS nv
nVe publications then allowed was in
creased to ninety days with twelve
weeks added for publication.
but Is is suggested that the charter
provision changes the rule as above
STATED. Ihls section of the charter
READS: The time specified for the pub
hcat lon of any notice required 70 ba
published in the official paper, of said
city' under this city charter, or of any
OF the provisions of the amendments
lhereto, snail commence with the first
publica ton" III |
IT may be said that the qualifications
required to BET made by the treasurer is
MORE THAN A MERE NOTICE, ;,
II is also list of all parcels of land
delinquent, etc. Perhaps. therefore
technically, section 20 would not apply
But section 20 does not apply in anv
event except possibly, to require Tho
hrst day of the publication to he
counted as well az the last. thus chang-
ing the familiar rule of excluding The
Hfst and including the last dav.
An examination of the charter will
snow mat in every other case. EXCEPT
section 139, Municipal Code, where no.
tlces are required to be published
the language invariably used is off,
teen days notice by one publication -
or ten days notice by two publica-
t!onS, and the like. 1t is to these no.
tlceS that section 20 applies: and If
was one of these that was under con
Slderation in Fairchild VS.. CITY of ST
Paul, 46 MiLn., $40.
That this must be so is manifest
from the fact that in chapter VII. title
/, p. 81, Special Laws 1874 (when the
board of works system was inaue1I-
rated), wherever notices of so MANY
days by so many publications are re-
CURED, each section requiring such no
tice and publication also provided that
the time began to run with the first
publication.
Whca amended and 're-enacted in
Special Laws 1887, chapter Z, this pro
Vlso as to the first publication was
omitted entirely from the several sec
tons. the lawmaker evidently supnos-
ing that section 90 chapter 7. Snecial
Laws 1888, covered the matter. II may
be remarked. however, that this section