The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-22
STATES CLAIM SUSTAINED.
THAT SOME ONE ELSE ESCAPES HIS
JUST BURDEN DOES NOT
RELIEVE YOU.
ONE LOWER COURT Is REVERSED
On Ruling Which Is of Interest to
All Owners of Mortgaged
Property.

two of which the lower court is re-
yersed, and in another the order is
modified and the case remanded for
further proceedings in the district
court. The case is most important, as
it makes a ruling Of great Importance
to the taxing officers of the state and
of st. Louis county.
The decision is in the suit brought by
the taxing officers of ST. Louis county
to enforce the collection of taxes
against the Lake Side Land company,
of Duluth The company set up the
claim that it's taxes were not only too
high, but that the levy was unconsti-
tutiOnal, because it was higher than
the tax collected from the mining COM
panies which, at the time the suit was
brought, were paying l per cent per
ton on the ore mined from their lands
in lieu of all other taxation. The SUI
preme court holds that this law, which,
by the way, was repealed at the ses-
sion of the legislature last winter, was
invalid, being in violation Of article g.
section l, Of the constitution, provid-
ing for uniform taxation throughout
the state, but the land company will
have to pay the tax, as the court holds
that the fact that certain properties
have been wilfully omitted from the
| tax lists. or have been wilfully under
| valued, is no defense, total or partial,
| to the application of the state for judg-
ment for the amount of taxes levied
| against the land. The syllabus is as
| follows:
| In re taxes delinquent in St Louis county for
the year 1895. State of Minnesota vs. Lake
| side Land Company. objector
General Laws. 1881 (EX. Sccs) Ch 81, Gen
| eral Statutes 1894, section 1850 providing a
| committed system of taxation of mining prop
| erty and products by the payment of a fixed
| sum per ton for all mined and shipped
| or disposed of is invalid because in conflict
with article 9. section J. of the constitution
| of the state.
| If the assessment of a taxpayers land is
| impartial equal and fair compared with the
| Except particular omitted undervaIued
! tracts in the same taxing district. the fact
! that certain particular properties have been
Intentionally and wilfully omitted from the
| tax lists or Intentionally and wiCulIy under
! valued, is no defense, either partial or total,
! to the application of the state for judgment
| Tor the amount cf taxes levied against the
| land.
While school taxes for independent school
| districts are to be extended on the tax lists
! and collected by the same county officers as
! county taxes are extended and collected the
! county commissioners have nothing to do
with 'levying" them, in the of de-
| termining the amount to be raised or ap-
| proving the action Of the district in that re-
| gard
Modified and remanded Mitchell, ].
| warning to mortgaSorS to assure them
selves that there is no leak between their
cash payments and the MORTGAGE is found
| in the reversal Of the lower courts decision
| in the following case:
! Eliza A. Herrick. appellant VS.. Frank C.
Mcsher ct al. defendants; Frank c.
Moshcr, respondent
One X was the agent of plaintiff to lend
! money to third parties on real estate Securi-
| ties and to receive payment of the same.
| The defendant. having purchased frcm X.
| land upon which there a mortgage to
| plaintiff executed by a former owner. but
| which X. had assumed and agreed to pay and
| against which X. was obliged to defendant
! under the covenants of his deed TO protect
the title, paid part of the purchase money
| to X. at the time of the delivery of the decd
| and subsequently transmitted TO him draft
for the balance of the purchase money which
| was just equal to the amount due or
plaintiffs mortgage. At the time defeudsn;
sent the draft he had no knowledge OF the
existence OF any relation of principal and
agent between X and plaintiff. that they
had any business relations whatever with
| each other. X. appropriated the money to his
| own use and never paid or accounted for il
| to plaintiff.
In this action to foreclose the mortgage. de-
| paid II to plaintiffs agent. K.
Held. that the evidence did not establish
| the defense; that construed most favorably
| to the defendant it merely tended 20 proyr
| that defendant sent the money to X as hi.
| agent 10 be applied in payment of the mort
gage.
| Judgment reversed
The following the syllabi OF the Other
| decisions filed yesterday:
| City CT Duluth. respondent. VS.. Fred Marsh
| appellant.
Held that license fee Of 1925 for 81,
months for theatrical performances in the city
! OF Duluth is not unreasonable or in oXces:
OF the police power of the city to license
and regulate such performances Order af-
| firmed. Mitchell 7
Chas. ]. Hershey ct al. by their guardian
ad Item Herman NJ. Hershey, appellants
dents
N. devised certain lands to R. for life
with general and beneficial power to hin
to devise the remainder in fee. r. execute (
to defendants mortgages on the lands pur
porting to convey an absolute fee and sub
sequently died testate. deyising the lands Il
the plaintiffs.
Afterwards, in the administration of tn
estate OF ~, the probate court made a de
cree of distribution by which it construst
the will of NJ. as granting TO Il. a lifi
estate with power of disposition by will only
and. in accordance with such construction
under the will of r.
In prior action the plaintiffs obtanel
| by uelault judgment against defendan
Willis adjudging his mortgage null ant
void. subsequently the court on motion O
Willis, made order vacatng the judg
ment. and from that order the plaintiffs ap
pealed and gave supersedeas bond. Tha
appeal is still pending. In this action t
determine the adverse claims of the defendant
under these mortgages held:
First-That R. had under the statute re
lating to powers, an absolute power OF dis
position Of the lands and that his life estau
was changed into fee absolute as respect
the rights of creditors and purchasers Gen
eral Statutes 1894. sections 1909 and 1872
Second-That defendants are not estoppe
by the decree of distribution from asserti1,
their rights under their mortgages
Third-That the appeal of the plaintiffs from
| the order vacating the judgment in the forme
action, did not reinstate the judgment s
as to give it operation as an estoppel. Orde
| affirmed. Mitchell J.
Lucas Halls, as assignee of Nehemiah f
Clarke. ct al. appellants, vs. VIM. F. Web
ster. as administrator of c. f. Powell. re
spondent.
Action by assignee in insolvency to Sc
aside conveyance by his assignor to defep
dants interstate On the ground that 1t wa
made in contemplation of insolvency with
view to give the deceased a preference on
pre-existing debt.
Held, that the evidence justified fndin
that the deceased purchased without an
reasonable cause to believe that the vendo
was insolvent. Also. that the assignor. be
cause of interest in the event OF the action
was not a competent witness for his as
Sgnee to testify as to conversations with IN
deceased relative to the transaction Orde
, affirmed.
In re. Efstrand & Peterson. insolvents; Angu
Gum. appellant VS., John A. Smith. re
1 spondent.
has no interest in the trust which will Civ
, him right OF appeal from an order of con,