The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-08
SUPREME COURT
PHONE Co. LOSES
In TAX APPEAL
NORTHWESTERN COMPANY MUST
PAY ON THE BUILDING.
Refusal to Pay the Tax on the Proper
ty Was Based on the Contention that
It Was Exempt Under the Gross
Earnings Law-Other Decisions To-
day. ~

Justice Brown Of the supreme court,
in a decision handed down today, af-
firms the order OF the district court Of
Hennepin county in the suit of the.
state against the Northwestern Teie-
phone Exchange company to enforce
the payment OF delinquent taxes. The
county sought to collect taxes on the
exchange building at Fifth street and
Third avenue S. The company refused
the building was used for telephone
purposes exclusively, and as such was
exempt from the local taxes because
the company paid the state tax on
gross earnings. The county maintained
that there was distinction between
the building and the company's other
property, such as poles, wires and con-
Quits, and when the tax became delin-
quent, suit was brought in the name OF
the state The court held that the
property was not necessarily used in
the company business and made an or
der for Judgment aaginst the company.
The latter appealed to the supreme
court, which today sustained the lower
court. The syllabus is as follows: +
In proceedings to enforce the payment
Of delinquent taxes on property belonging
to defendant it is held that the findings
of the trial court that the property is
IOl llSCOSSdIlly uSSu Ill Tile. COuuuCL OF
defendants business as a telephone COM.
pany, are sustained by the evidence.
Order affirmed. Brown, j.
Other decisions today were:
Mary J. Teel, respondent. VS.. ST.. Paul City
Railway company, appellant. 80 -,
Syllabus: Action to recover for personal in
juries sustained by collision between the
defendants street car and the sleigh Of Nhe
plaintiffs husband, in, which she was riding and
which was drawn by a horse owned and driven
Ftrst-The evidence justified the trial court
In submitting to the Jury the question OF the
wilful negligence OF the defendant and the
courts charge to the jury as to such question:
considered whole was free from error.
Second-The court did not err in its charge as
to the alleged failure Of the defendant to sound
its gong. GSTf5
Third-The evidence does not show that the
plaintiff was guilty Of contributory negligence
as matter of law. - .:..s.-
/ Order affirmed. Start G. ].
Roy L. Braucht, by Katie D. Braucht. his guar
dian ad Item, appellant, VS.. the Graves-May
company, respondent ~
Syllabus: The decision Of a former appeal
reviewing a, former trial of an action in the
law of the case on an appeal reviewing a
the on both trials.
| Order affirmed. Elliott, J.
| In re proceedings to enforce payment of taxes
| real estate in Pine county, Atwood Lumber
company, objector. =. t. ..
| Syllabus: First-Real property is required by
the statutes of this state to be assessed for
taxation on even numbered years only, the
assessment for the succeeding year being based
year.
Second-To render available as defense In
proceedings to obtain Judgment for the taxes
for the succeeding year the claim that the yalu
and unequal by reason of the fact that subse
quent to the original assessment and prior to the
first of May the following year a large body
Of timber standing the land had been cut
and removed, thereby greatly reducing the value
OF the land. 1t must appear, the original assess
ment being fair and in accordance with the true
value of the land, that the facts showing the
reduction in its value We're presented to the
board of equalization and an application made
to these officials for a read1ustment Of the
assessment. tSt& = :
Thlrd-The officers referred to would have thu
power and 1t would be their duty to hear ant
act upon such application III. F.. -
| Fourth-Whether in case where the orieina
assessment Of real property was fraudulently
made In excess Of the true value Of the LIANT
| the property owner would be required as &
condition precedent to the right to interpos.
| such defense to apply to the board Of equali
! cation for a reduction of his assessment quaere
AHrmed. Brown, J.
Redor Wardner, respondent, vs.. Great Northern
Railway company, appellant. + :.
Syllabus:< In an action to recover for per
sonal injuries caused by collision betwee,
PLAINTIFFS team and switch engine of de
l PENDANT at the crossing of defendants raiIroa
over Third street in Grand Forks, the evidenc
| is examined and held to show conclusiyely tina
plaintiff was guilty Of contrbutory negligence.
| Order reversed. Brown T.
Music company, respondent -" =
| Order affirmed, T&Sf< Per Curr1ano