The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1901-07-04
TAX SITUATION.

A Circular From the State Auditor Con-
corning Redemptions.
State Auditor Dunn issued circular
Monday to county auditors directing
them as to the proper mode of proce-
dure in tax matters as decided by the
supreme court recently. In part the
circular is as fellows: Il 5..,.s.Es.s-..5.5.--sss
I'm the case of Cole VS. Lamm, in. N.
w. 329, our supreme court held that
the owner had the right to redeem
from the forfeited tax sale provided for
by chapter 1922, General Laws 1899, at
any time before the notice of expira-
ton had been given, provided for by
section 1854, Statutes of 1894. In that
case the amount required for redemp-
ton was not involved, hence was not
determined. "
''In the case of Kipp VS.. johnson
decision was given on June 20, 1901, in
which our supreme court held that
the amount required to redeem from a
tax sale pursuant to chapter 322, Cen
eral Laws 1899, is the sum paid at the
sale by the purchaser, with interest,
and not necessarily the full amount of
taxes, with interest and costs.
Wherefore, in preparing the>notice
of expiration, the amount to be stated
for redemption should be the actual
amount paid by the purchasers at the
sale, together with all subsequent de-
linquent taxes that may have been
paid, with interest on all sums paid, as
provided by law. Interest should be
computed at the rate of l per cent per
month, from the date of the sale, or
the time of payment when subsequent
taxes have been paid (Sec. 1881 :
"Having arrived at the amount that
can be acceptedsby you for redemption
from the forfeited sale under chapter
1872, General Laws 1899, the next ques-
ton is, what is to be done with the
money so paid? ~
"When the amount of sale is less
than the judgment, which is nearly
always the case, it is comparatively
easy The purchaser gets what he has
paid, with interest, and that disposes
OF it. But in some cases pieces we're
sold for a sum in excess of the judg-
ment. In such cases you must like
wise require the original owner to pay
the full amount for which the tract was
sold, together with subsequent taxes,
etc., with interest as stated above, ex-
cept interest on the excess paid at the
sale.
1.-THE next question is, what becomes
of the excess or surplus paid at the
sale? ~...
''The owner of the land is entitled to
receive the excess, above the judg-
ment, for which his land was sold.
(Farnham VS.. JONES' 80 Mimi, p. 7,
and opinion of attorney general, Sept.
.l8, 1881
: when redemption is made in such
cases your records should show that
the full amount of sale, with interest,
has been paid by the party redeeming,
as required by the decision in Kipp
vs.. johnson. ". - d.
'sIn cases where tracts were sold for
an amount in excess of the Judgment,
and the owner has not redeemed, the
excess should likewise be paid to the
owner of the land, after his right of
redemption has been cut off by the
service of the notice of expiration I'M
der Sec. 1854"
The farm machinery men say that
this has been a banner year for their
business. The prospects of q good crop
have made the farmers feel that they
could invest in the needed new machin-
cry and they are all getting well pre-
pared for the coming harvest.