The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-06-17
BUCK HITS CORPORATIONS
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
IN A TAX CASE

In His Opinion the Jurist Says If
the Contention of the Northern
Trust Company In This Case
Were Right, Corporations Would
he Solvent for business but In
solvent for Taxation.
Judge Buck, of the supreme court,
yesterday handed down a decision in
the case of The State against The
Northern Trust Company, of Minneapo-
lis, sustaining the lower court in it's
refusal to exempt an item of $500, 1000,
which the defendants claimed should
have been exempted from it's tax state
ment by reason of the fact that it had
outstanding that amount of debts
When the trust company made up its
tax statement in 1896, it amounted to
50, 1875, and was passed upon both by
>the state board of equalization and the
county board. Later the trust company
made the claim that it should be al
lowed a discount Of the taxes upon the
$300,00 which it had outstanding In
debts. This would have reduced the
amount due the state to about $125.
Under the law the claim of the trust
company would have been valid, had it
.
auditor of Hennepin county refused to
make the concession and the state
brought action against the trust COM
Spahy for the payment Of the full
amount due the state as made up in
the tax statement. The trust company
made the point that the statement was
not signed by an officer of the corpora
ton and therefore the assessment was
invalid.
Cnnranna rprf ~
view of the matter, saying that since
the assessor had the right to make the
assessment himself, 1t made do differ
ence whether the statement was signed
by the corporation as the prerogative Of
power in the premises was confined
solely to that officer. The trust COM
pany had no right to take advantage
of the neglect of it's own officer.
In the opinion handed down by Judge
Buck, which is quite lengthy, a very
significant sentence occurs. The Judge
says If making attachments on the
grounds held in the trial were sustain
ed, nearly every corporation in the
state would do the same thing, and
corporations would be solvent for
business but insolvent for taxation. !"
Following Is the syllabus:
State Of Minnesota, plaintiff, VS.. Northern
Trust Company, defendant
the proper officer of a corporation made
and delivered to an assessor statement Of
the amount of its capital stock. and the other
items as required by G. S. 1894 sec 1880, ex-
cept 1t failed to include therein any statement
that such corporation was indebted In any
AMOUNT and failed to verify such statement.
Held, that the failure Of the officer to swear
to such statement did not invalidate it. and
that the legal effect of said return cS1sti-
tuted representation that there was no in
oeDtedness OF the corporation. Held, also,
that though said statement did not conform
to the requirements of the statutes, vet it
having been made out by the proper officer
of the corporation, it cannot call in question
it's validity.
Held, further, that it was not competent
upon the hearing of the citation to show cause
why the corporation should not pay its taxes
for 1t to prove that, at the time the state
ment was made out by It's officer it was in
debted In large sum which should have been
inserted in said statement, but was not. Or
der afnrmed and case remanded
Buck, ].
Orrin Kipp, appellant, VS.. James L. Fitch ct
al, defendants, James L. Fitch respondent
tax judgment was rendered under G. s.
1884 sec. $780, which was in all respects regu-
lar, except that the notice to be given to per-
sons having interest in, or lien upon the land
against which the judgment was rendered, re-
quired the defendant to file an answer in the
office of the clerk of the district court on or
before the 21st day of March, 1892, instead of
March 20~1S92, as provided by said section
the latto< day being Sunday.
Held, under the rule that where the last
day within which an act to be done falls on
Sunday it shall be excluded from the compu-
tation of the time, the notice was sufficient
and valid.
A notice to redeem from a tax sale issued
sec. 1859, stating that the time for redemp-
ton from said sale allowed by law will ex-
pire sixty days after service of this notice and
proof thereof filed in my Office and that in
addition to the amount above stated, as nee
essary to redeem from said sale the costs of
service OF this notice must be paid, together
with such interest as may accrue from and
after this date and signed by the county
auditor is sufficient If the other requirements
OF the statute are complied with, but held
that where such notice is dated May 8, 1895.
which such redemption is required to be m q !,
was May 81, 1898, the notice is invalid as no
such notice can be lawfully given until after
three years from the date Of such tax sale.
Such notice is void on it's face. Case re-
manded. Buck 7
The A nntna9 o, TAYLOR Company appellant
In 1889 G. owned a farm, which he mort
gagged to S., who assigned it to R., and the
latter duly foreclosed the same-and purchased
1894, and took the sheriff's certificate of SALE
which he assigned to A. & T. Co., corpora.
ton. There was no redemption and the cor
July Q, 1895. On Sept. 80, 1893, G. leased
ing season. s of 1894 and nd IS! 1855. faf the
lease enQlnS sept. l. 1888. From seed
grain sown the land Of the lessee in rhe
spring of 1895, the crop matured, was harvest
ed and threshed and removed from the prem
ises by the lessee July Is, 1895, he having
been in the continuous possession of the prem
ises during said time.
Held, That against said corporation G.,
or his lessee, was the owner of said grain
Where one Judge presided at the trial of an
action, another judge had no authority on
motion for judgment notwithstanding the YER
dict to make findings of fact upon evidence
not heard by him.
In an action of replevin where the answer
is general denial and the defendant does
not claim return Of the property, he may
prove any facts which tend to show that the
plaintiff Is not entitled to the possession of the
property.
A demand in the answer for return of the
property taken from the possession of the
defendant by proceedings in replevin, does
not raise an issue of fact, and hence an
amendment permitting such demand to be in
serted In the answer would not raise any
new issue or involve the pleading of any new
facts, such amendment may be allowed after
trial, or after judgment or even after appeal