The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-03-13
1T MEANS A SAYING
Bill to Require Longer Notice to
County Attorney Where Tax
Titles Are Attacked.
Cases in Which the County Has
Been Compelled to Refund
. Large Amounts.

bill has been placed in the hands Of
III. e. Fryberger Of the Hennepin legis-
lative delegation, which, if it becomes
a law, may save the county annoyance
and money by protecting it's interests in
tax title cases. The bill provides that,
where proceedings for the refundment of
delinquent taxes, which have been paid by
a, second party, are commenced on the
ground that the certificate held by such
party is invalid, notice shall be given
to the county attorneys office in time to
enable the county attorney to appear and
defend the county's interest.
Taxes frequently become delinquent; the
investor in tax titles pays the taxes, and
in the course of time. when his payments
amount to considerable sum in COMPARE
son with the value of the property, he may
reach an agreement with the original
owner to attack; the validity Of the GER
tificate, which, If successfully done, re-
Quires the state to refund with 10 or II
per cent interest the amount Of money
paid by the purchaser Of the certificate,
| while the original owner comes again into
possession of his property.
The necessity of such a law as that
outlined, therefore, is clear. It is Illus
trated by recent proceedings in the dis
trict court. A case went through Judge
Ponds court in which the county was
obliged to refund taxes including interest
amounting to Sill, 742. The holder Of the
| certificate successfully attacked it's va
| lidity and required the county to refund
his money and pay him this high rate OF
! interest. No notice was given to the
! county attorney and no knowledge Of the
prosecution of the case was had in his
| office until the county auditor was called
upon to authorize the. payment of the
! money. n ~
| Yesterday another case came up in the
| same court and was advanced when the
| county attorneys office learned incidental
| ly of the proceedings. A member of the
| county attorneys staff at once appeared
and asked for hearing in the interest Of
| the county. This officer had reason tt
believe that he could establish the va.
lidity of the certificate and protect the
county. The amount involved approx
mated $4,000. The court told the coun
ty attorney that he might proceed as soo1
as the attorneys for the plaintiff had fin
ished and argue the case. This permits
sion was not taken advantage of becaus
the county attorneys office was not ia
miliar with the facts, had not tn
evidence at hand and was not prepared
Time was asked to make such prepare
ton, and to introduce additional evidenc
on behalf of the county, This was denie
by the court. The attorney deemed
useless to put in brief if he could no
introduce evidence to sustain his conten
ton and declined to take such STEP
The fact that one such case has gon
through without notice to the county, an
another was about to slip through in tn
same way, raises the question as to tn
obligation of the court to protect tn
county's interest in matters of this kline
there being precedent for refusal of tn
court to proceed with such hearin
without the presence of the county's legs
, representative. It also emphasizes tn
Importance of the passage Of the bl
placed. in Mr.. Fryberger's hands. e Sue
cases are likely tor come up at any tim
The county attorney says he should ne
r be required to, and cannot be expected I
: keep constant watch forI cases of tn
! character and,lsnow when. they are take
up, and the requirement cef notice Is Gel
! tainly in the public interest Such a n
}. quirement might have saved Hennep'
] county thousands Of dollars. ~o,c