47 Minn. 512 | Minn. | 1891
Batehelder and Buekham,' being the owners of nearly 60 tracts of land in the town of Edna, in Otter Tail county,, interposed an answer in these proceedings for the recovery of a tax judgment against such lands, and upon their answer the matter was tried in accordance with the statute in the district court. The decision was against' the parties thus answering, who may be designated the defendants, and at their request the matter was certified to this: court for review. Briefly stated, the defence shown or offered to be-shown was as follows: It was proved beyond dispute (as the court finds) that the lands in question were unimproved, situate remote from roads, and the highest cash value of any of them did not exceed $2.75 per acre. The average valuation of lands in the whole township, including improved lands, as assessed in these tax proceedings, did not exceed $4.44 per acre, while the lands in question of these-defendants were assessed at the average value of $4.07 per acre. The-defendants offered to prove “that lands other than those of the defendants in said town, both improved and unimproved, and the structures, were assessed at less than one-half their cash value.” This-proof was excluded. They also offered to show that they, being nonresidents of the county, duly petitioned the county board of equalization for a reduction of the assessed valuation of their lands, which, proof was also excluded. The answer, setting forth substantially the-facts above indicated, further alleged that the taxes sought to be enforced were “pa'rtially, unfairly, and unequally assessed.”
As we understand from the note, of the learned judge appended to-his decision, it was considered that only when there has been an omission of some of the proceedings prescribed by statute, which omission has resulted in prejudice to the defendant, can such a de-fence be made by answer as these defendants sought to present; and that, in the absence of any such omission, the land-owner is concluded by the action of the board of equalization. We think that
“If all the provisions of law in relation to the assessment and levy of taxes shall have been complied with, of which the list so filed with the clerk shall be prima facie evidence, then judgment shall be rendered for such taxes and the penalties and costs. But no omission of any of the things by law provided in relation to such assessments and levy, or of anything required by any officer or officers to be done prior to the filing of the list with the clerk, shall be' a defence or objection to the taxes appearing upon any piece or parcel of land, unless it be also made to appear to the court that such omission has resulted to the prejudice of the party objecting, and that the taxes against such piece or parcel of land have been partially, unfairly, or unequally assessed; and in such case, but no other, the court may reduce the amount of taxes upon such piece or parcel, and give judgment accordingly. It shall always be a defence in such proceedings, when made to appear by answer and proofs, that the taxes have been paid, or that the property is not subject to taxation.”
Except as to the matters of exemption and payment specified in the last sentence of this section, it is noticeable that the statute does not affirmatively and specifically state the nature of the de-fences which may be made, unless it be in the language that “in such case, but no other, the court may reduce the amount of taxes,” etc. As has been indicated in our former decisions, we are of the opinion that the statute was not intended to precisely define and limit the defences which may be made. County of Redwood v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co., 40 Minn. 512, (41 N. W. Rep. 465, and 42 N. W. Rep. 473.) There can be no question as to the meaning and effect of the negative provision that no omission of •what the law requires to be done shall be a defence, unless it be •shown that prejudice has resulted therefrom to the party objecting, and that the taxes have been partially, unfairly, or unequally
But while a defence may be made to the assessment under some' circumstances, as in the case above suggested, yet from the very nature of the subject it must be considered that the mere fact that the assessment is too large cannot be allowed as a defence. From necessity, tax proceedings are and must be in a great degree summary. It would be practically impossible for our courts of general jurisdiction to determine, in the manner in which property-rights are ordi
Applying to this case the conclusions above expressed as to the effect of the statute, we think that the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the defendants. The answer is deemed sufficient to admit the proof offered. The statute (section 75) only requires that the answer set forth the facts constituting the defence or objection to the tax. It is alleged that the taxes in question were partially, unfairly, and unequally assessed; the extent of such.inequality in comparison with the other lands in the town being stated. We understand the offer to show that lands other than those of the defendants were assessed at less than one-half their value referred to other lands generally, and not to a few particular tracts. It will be seen, then, that the case sought to be shown was, in brief, that while the lands in general in the township were assessed at less than one-half their value, the unimproved lands of these defendants were assessed at nearly 50 per cent, above their value. Such proof should be considered, too, in connection with the circumstances that this inequality was not with respect to a single tract of land, which might more readily be accounted for on the ground of error of judgment, but to nearly 60 different tracts owned by these non-resident defendants. Such facts being shown, it'would be difficult, in the absence of opposing proof or explanation, to escape the conclusion that the assessment had been intentionally made without regard to the requirements of the law, and upon a basis of systematic inequality.