Case Name: BISMARCK WATER SUPPLY COMPANY, a Corporation v. THE COUNTY OF BURLEIGH IN THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, a Public Corporation
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1917-03-06
Citations: 36 N.D. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: BISMARCK WATER SUPPLY COMPANY, a Corporation v. THE COUNTY OF BURLEIGH IN THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, a Public Corporation.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 191–199

Head Matter:
BISMARCK WATER SUPPLY COMPANY, a Corporation v. THE COUNTY OF BURLEIGH IN THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, a Public Corporation.
(161 N. W. 1009.)
Pleading — complaint — statutory action — adverse claims — brought to determine— specific claims — made by defendants — set forth in —not demurrable.
1. A complaint which contains all the material allegations required in a complaint in.a statutory action to determine adverse claim's, and in addition thereto sets forth the specific interests claimed therein by the defendant, and reasons showing such interests to be invalid is not demurrable.
Courts — powers of — relief to be granted — taxes — collection or annulment — actions for — taxation — partial — unfair — unequal.
2. Under the provisions of § 2201, Compiled Laws 1913, the courts are vested with powers to grant relief, in an action or proceeding to collect or annul taxes, or in an action to determine adverse claims, against partial, ■unfair, or unequal assessments.
Void taxes — sale on — land bid in by county — action — to cancel and annul — taxes — tax sale.
3. When lands have been offered for sale and bid in by a county for void taxes, an action lies against the county to cancel and annul the taxes and tax sales.
Opinion filed March 6, 1917.
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, Hon. W. L. Nuessle, Judge.
Affirmed.
H. B. Bemdtj State’s Attorney for Burleigh county, for appellant.
This action is in the nature of an action to.determine adverse claims to real property. But the complaint, instead of requiring defendant to “set forth all its adverse claims to the property, and that the validity, superiority, and priority thereof be determined,” contains allegations as for an action in “accord and satisfaction.” Comp, Laws, 1913, Code Civ. Proc. chap. 31, Comp. Laws, 1913, art. 6, chap. 54.
There is a misjoinder of causes and the demands for relief are wholly and manifestly inconsistent. Golden Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Johnstone, 21 N. D. 97, 128 N. W. 690.
It is true that a demurrer only reaches defects appearing on the face of the complaint or pleading to which it is directed. But we believe that by demurrer a party denies the legal sufficiency of the facts stated by his adversary. In other words, its function is to place in dispute the legal operation of the facts stated. Burnett v. Costello, 15 S. D. 89, 87 N W. 575.
Plaintiff has put into its complaint matters which might properly have been pleaded by way of reply, and has therefore made its complaint •demurrable. Calvo v. Davies, 73 N. Y. 211, 29 Am. Hep. 130; Dorsey v. Columbus B. Co. 121 Ga. 697, 49 S. E. 698; Clough v. Goggins, 40 Iowa, 325; Eavre v. Louisville & N. B. Co. 91 Ky. 541, 16 S. W. 370; Behrley v. Behrley, 93 Ind. 255; Knauss v. Lake Erie & W. B. Co. 29 Ind. App. 216, 64 N. E. 95; Matlock v. Mallory, 19 Ala. 694; Benfro v. Heard, 14 Ala. 23, 48 Am. Dec. 82.
County boards of equalization have no jurisdiction to correct individual valuations made by city boards. First Nat.' Bank v. Lewis, 18 N. D. 390, 121 N. W. 836; Minot v. Amundson, 22 N. D. 236, 133 N. W. 551.
Neither are courts the instruments to review an assessment for taxes. George C. Bagley Elevator Co. v. Butler, 24 S. D. 429, 123 N. W. 866.
The plaintiff’s own pleading shows an attempt to impeach the record upon which the pleading itself is based. Hoffheimer v. Stiefel, 17 Misc. 236, 39 N. Y. Supp. 715.'
“Taxes due from any person upon personal property shall be a lien upon any and all real estate and personal property owned by him at the time the tax became due.” Comp. Laws, 1913, § 2186; Bochford v. Fleming, 10 S. D. 24, 71 N. W. 317.
Miller, Zuger & Tillotson, for respondents.
(Mr. George E. Wallace, of the State Tax Commission, by special permission, filed a brief on behalf of the state, the City of Bismarck, and school district.)
Any person aggrieved by the manner in which his property is assessed, or by the unfair and unequal and partial action of the taxing powers, may maintain an action in the District Court to remove the cloud on his land and cancel unlawful taxes on the same, and he is not required, before doing so, to go before any board to seek relief. Minot v. Amundson, 22 N. D. 241, 133 N. W. 551.
County commissioners have the right to adjust and compromise disputed taxes, and to malee settlement thereof. Rev. Codes 1895 and 1899, § 1907; Rev. Code 1905, § 2401, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 2165, 3276; Hagler v. Kelly, 14 N. D. 218, 103 N. W. 629; Farnsworth v. Wilbur, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 320-323, note; Brown County v. Jenkins, 11 S. D. 330, 77 N. W. 579; State v. Davis, 11 S. D, Ill, 74 Am. St. Rep. 780, 75 N. W. 897; Earnham v. Lincoln, 75 Neb. 502, 106 N. W. 666; Washburn County v. Thompson, 99 Wis. 585, 75 N. W. 309; Collins v. Welch, 58 Iowa, 72, 43 Am. Rep. Ill, 12 N. W. 121.
This rule applies to corporations and individual alike. Gering v. School Dist. 79 Neb. 219, 107 N. W. 250.
The compromise of a controversy is valid, not because it is the settlement of a valid claim, but because it is the settlement of a dispute. Elannagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; City Electric R. Co. v. Eloyd County, 115 Ga. 655, 42 S. E. 45; Perkins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 241, 15 N. W. 115; Hall v. Wheeler, 37 Minn. 522, 35 N. W. 377; Mills v. Miller, 2 Neb. 299; Neibles v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. 37 Minn. 151, 33 N. W. 332.
The compromise of a dispute over a doubtful claim is a sufficient consideration to support a promise or a contract. Crans v. Hunter, 28 N. Y. 389; Melcher v. Insurance Co. 97 Me. 512, 55 Atl. 411; Blake v. Peck, 11 Yt. 483; Johnson v. Redwine, 98 Ga. 112, 25 S. E. 924; Lee v. Swilling, 68 Ark. 82, 56 S. W. 447; Dickey v. Jackson, 47 Or. 531, 84 Pac. 701; Gates v. Shutts, 7 Mich. 127.
In this case there was a settlement and full performance by both the water company and the county, and both are bound. Adams v. Grown Coal & Tow Co. 198 111. 445, 65 N. E. 97; Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 2, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1, 12 Eng. Rui. Cas. 100; Daly v. Busk Tunnel Co. 64 C. C. A. 87, 129 Eed. 513; McClure v. McClure, 100 Cal. 339, 34 Pac. 822; Smith v. Smith, 36 Ga. 184, 91 Am. Dec. 761; Bement v. May, 135 Ind. 664, 34 N. E. 327, 35 N. E. 387.
Such agreements, adjustments, and compromises find favor with the courts.’ Doyle v. Donnelly, 56 Me. 26; Sigsworth v. Coulter, 18 111. 204; Stoddard v. Mix, 14 Conn. 12; Flannagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443 ; Norton Bros. v. Eastman, 83 111. App. 303; McClure v. McClure, 100 Cal. 339, 34 Pac. 822.
A voluntary compromise of conflicting claims will not be set aside or disturbed in tbe courts merely because the parties may have acted upon a mistake in the law. Stover v. Mitchell, 45 111. 213; Collins v-Welch, 58 Iowa, 72, 43 Am. Pep. Ill, 12 N. W. 121.

Opinion:
Pobinson, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Burleigh County on an order overruling a demurrer to a complaint in an action to cancel a void tax. The complaint shows that in the years 1901 to 1905, inclusive, the plaintiff was the owner of a system of waterworks and that there was connected with the water mains of plaintiff a line of water mains extending to the state penitentiary, and another line, which belonged exclusively to the state and was used to supply water in the penitentiary and the capitol. That in said years the defendant caused the valuation of said 3 miles of water mains to be added to the valuation of the plaintiff's personal property. On this false valuation there was assessed and levied against the property of the plaintiff the sum of $4,416.79, which included $1,416.79 on the valuation of said 3 miles of water mai-ns which belonged to the state. Then plaintiff appealed for relief to the county commissioners and appealed to the district court from an order of the commissioners denying it a just abatement of such illegal tax. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff and the defendant compromised the matter. The plaintiff agreed to pay and did pay the sum of $3,000 in full discharge of the taxes levied against it, and the defendant agreed to abate and cancel the illegal tax. The defendant failed to perform its agreement and caused the void tax to be extended on the tax list against the real property of the plaintiff, which was advertised and bid in by the county for the amount of such void tax, with interest, penalty, and cost. Of course, the demand of the complaint is that the void taxes and tax sale be canceled.
As the stated facts show beyond question that the taxes and tax sales were void, the complaint does state a good cause of action. Indeed, the plaintiff had a good cause of action without applying to the commissioners for any reduction of the assessment. The case d&es not involve any question of compromising a tax, or of an accord and satisfaction. It is merely a suit to declare that a void tax is void.
In reading the decisions of this court and the statutes of the state it must be remembered that under the Constitution every man has a remedy by due process of law for all injuries done him in his person or property. He does not have to run all round Eobin Hood's barn. He may demand of the courts right and justice, without sale, denial, or delay.
It is needless to waste time in reviewing decisions on so simple a matter. The order overruling the demurrer and the judgment are affirmed.