Case Name: IN RE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF REAL ESTATE TAXES BECOMING DELINQUENT ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF JANUARY, 1920. STATE v. MARIETTA E. SAVAGE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1923-04-20
Citations: 155 Minn. 501
Docket Number: No. 23,348
Parties: IN RE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF REAL ESTATE TAXES BECOMING DELINQUENT ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF JANUARY, 1920. STATE v. MARIETTA E. SAVAGE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 501–502

Head Matter:
IN RE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF REAL ESTATE TAXES BECOMING DELINQUENT ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF JANUARY, 1920. STATE v. MARIETTA E. SAVAGE.
April 20, 1923.
No. 23,348.
Finding of value sustained.
Where evidence was conflicting, trial court’s finding of value of real estate for purposes of taxation was not disturbed on appeal. [Reporter.]
Proceedings to enforce the payment of delinquent real estate taxes. Defendant filed an answer. The matter was heard by Nye, J., who made findings and ordered judgment as stated in the opinion. From an order denying her motion to set aside the findings, conclusions and order, or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
M. H. Boutelle, Eugene N. Best and LeRoy Bowen, for appellant.
Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney, and Frank J. Williams, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.
Reported in 193 N. W. 114.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a proceeding for the enforcement of the payment of delinquent taxes for the year 1915, in Hennepin county. It is alleged in the answer that the property was assessed and taxed upon a valuation far in excess of its true value in money. A trial of the issue resulted in a finding 'by the trial court that the claim of appellant was well taken. The property was assessed and taxed upon a valuation of $42,040. The court found the true value, on May 1, 1918, to be $29,000 and ordered judgment accordingly. The proceeding comes to this court by an appeal denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
The sole question presented is whether the evidence as to the value of the property sufficiently supports the findings and judgment. The evidence is conflicting as to the value of the property. The method of arriving at the value of property for the purpose of taxation is prescribed by G. S. 1913, § 1987. This method was followed in the instant case. We have considered the evidence with care and are of the opinion that the result arrived at by the trial court should not be disturbed.
Affirmed.