*1 OF SEBEKA VILLAGE v. DAIRY COMPANY O’ LAKES LAND OTHERS.1,2 AND 12, 1948. March 34,519. No.
1Reported in 660. Supreme U. Court June 2Certiorari denied Jordan, Mitchell and Harold Butler & ap- Doherty, Rumble, pellant. Hugh Parker, and R. Kennedy, County G. Attorney,
Charles W. *2 respondents. Bradford, S. T. Gallagher,
Frank Justice. sustaining from an order the demurrers of Appeal defendants to complaint. the amended by Dairy
This is an action Land O’ Lakes Company, corporation, of dairy company, against village hereinafter called the Sebeka and others, act, under that cer- praying consisting dehydration tain of a milk property, plant in village of Sebeka and connected personal therewith, adjudged be exempt from belonging taxation as the United States.
The facts in the are complaint substantially stated the same as Co. v. of Dairy County those Land O’ Lakes 225 Douglas, Minn. 535, 31 N. W. filed herewith. Since the 474, appeals are con- they are temporaneous, companion treated cases. as error dairy company assigns
The the court erred in sus- taining the demurrers to its complaint. amended May 1945, again May 1946, and 1, 1,
On the real and plant of consisted listed was and assessed for purposes. provisions tax Pursuant to the of M. S. A. c. May 31, paid on or before company, one-half the real simultaneously tax and served and filed
estate its petition, as re- real c. estate by claiming said quired exempt from taxa- on the hearing petition prior No was held tion. to November 1, did not of pay part 1946. The unpaid balance November 1, tax before nor the real estate such pay- All proceedings regard court order. by waived ment to the peti- M. by mandate A. 278.03, were dismissed which provides tion instituted proceedings filing if the the petition November completed before next not been following have n filing petitioner pay percent petition year current percent taxes for the remaining unpaid upon probable based value of the remaining property, unpaid found court This application. sec- the value has if provides: also statute tion *
“* of such additional amount shall payment make Failure to all petition proceedings automatically dismiss operate waived an order the court payment unless thereunder [*] [*] # yy paid full, taxes were but none of the personal property year taxes assessed for the personal property estate or paid.
have been brought provisions After dismissal dairy company brought pursuant c. action M. S. judgment declaring adjudging praying land, for a c. equipment warranty machinery, and described deed plant, to in amended to be exempt of sale referred and bill all May levies, 1, 1945; assessments, taxation as *3 declared null and complaint wholly in the be void described taxes retain its status legal effect; property exemp- of no and such time as the States should until United be tion taxation and, by property; way supplemental of its interest in the divested decreeing company refund to the for an order first relief, by paid it as above referred to. half of the taxes (1) appeal: are raised Is Two issues declaratory judgments (2) under the act? Does proceed entitled entitling the company out facts to relief set under act? consider whether the declaratory must first judgments We determining purpose for the available whether act is exempt from taxation. Defendants consideration contend applicable act is here because the adequate and exclusive remedy by legislature enacting laws now as M. S. A. 277.02 and appearing 278.01. Section contains for relief from provisions 277.02 assessments for and in taxes reads follows: “On fifth day April, county secular each year, treas- urer shall make a list of all personal property remaining taxes de- linquent April first, immediately certify and shall to and file the same with the clerk the district court his and county, upon such shall be filing prima list facie evidence that all of the provisions of law and levy relation assessment such with. or complied have On before the tenth day secular any whose name is person embraced list thereafter, such an answer, file with the clerk verified as pleadings actions, civil setting objection forth his defense or tax or penalty against him. any The answer need not be in particular but form, shall clearly refer to penalty the tax or and intended, set forth in concise language the his constituting objection facts defense or to such or penalty. The issues raised such answer shall stand for any at term of county trial court such in session when the time to file shall expire, general answers at the next or special term held in appointed county; be such if and, no such term be ap- be within pointed days thereafter, held then same be shall brought general to trial at term appointed to be held within the days’ judicial ten notice. county district, attorney of within which taxes are if county levied, or, none, there be county which such proceedings within are instituted, shall prosecute the same. At term at which such proceedings come precedence of all trial, they shall take other business before shall, delay The court without and the court. summarily, hear objections determine the defenses made answers, and judgment accordingly, term direct the same the trial shall of form all matters disregard technicalities not affecting the and penalties If the taxes merits. substantial sustained, *4 costs.” include judgment objection for a or defense provides 278.01 taxes on Section real follows: estate as or or lien estate, right, title, interest having any
“Any person been that has who claims such land, any parcel upon parcel or that such unequally assessed, or unfairly, partially, value, actual greater than its or at a valuation assessed or in part, same is whole against illegal, tax levied or from the so exempt is tax or that paid, has been objection defense, of his claim, levied, may have the in which county court of the by the district determined for such determination serving copies petition of a levied attorney county and the auditor, county treasurer, county clerk service, in the office of the of such filing same, proof with day year first of June of the on or before the court of the district payable.” tax becomes such defendants claim that there is no need taxes, real estate As to the M. declaratory because, they argue, for a judgment, if and that adequate, speedy, complete, A. c. 278 is requirements of comply with the that statute the or refuses to fails meant remedy. They was not as another declaratory judgments act & Bank v. Minn. N. Billstein, Farmers Merchants cite compel county was in mandamus to 138. That action auditor stating required to issue certificates the amount in this state from tax sales and commanding lands redeem certain money to receive issue the county proper treasurer cer- redemption. appealed judgment quash- Plaintiff tificate of duly of mandamus issued and served ground the writ on the ing proper remedy. was not It mandamus was held remedy. In proper reversing mandamus was trial court, this N. (204 140) Minn. 283 W. : said court judgments declaratory designed “The law was not to supplant remedies well established and working satisfactorily. other Miller Mich. N. Siden, 259 W. 823.” v. Pa. Lewis,
In Bell Tel. Co. v. where it held that an action for a declaratory judgment against
545 constitutionality certain statutes could not to test governor court said: maintained, he
*“* * will proceeding Such a entertained where another statutory provided has cases of similar remedy import: A. Ibid., 265]; Leafgreen Pa. 131 455, 471 v. La Bar, 293 Pa. [284 Casualty 263 A. Nesbitt v. Manufacturers’ Ins. 224]; Co., [142 A. a fully adequate Pa. Here the remedy [165 403]. question which it which to test the the constitutionality raises, statutes, by proceedings against mandamus secretary * * highways: cite jurisdictions Defendants also cases from other in support of theory for proceedings declaratory judgments are not au statutory thorized where another remedy has been for the character of the presented. case Williams See, v. Tawes, 179 Md. 224, 17 (2d) L. R. 137, 132 A. 1105; Lisbon Village Dist. v. Lisbon, 85 N. H. A. 252; 173, Manufacturers Nat. Bank v. City 285 Mich. 280 N. Detroit, 760;W. Annotations, 132 A. L. R. A. L. 1120, 12 R. 50 A. L. R. 48; Am. Jur., Declaratory Judg ments, 21. Defendants claim that this § court has not intimated any cases which have been it involving before c. 278 that the issues which it authorizes be presented in the alternative upon ap plication declaratory for judgment. Cited is Saxhaug v. County 215 Minn. Jackson, 490, 497, 10 N. (2d)W. 726, wherein defendants this case contend that this court indicated ex the procedure clusiveness of allowed c. 278 stating that “the statute c.A. him permitting to contest [M. 278] [landowner] by petition should be liberally construed to him afford relief not otherwise him.” open to In Village Rosso v. 214 Minn. Brooklyn 364, Center, (2d) 219, was held c. 278 affords a taxpayer that because adequate remedy collection assessment contest assessment suit equity is not entitled to maintain a an in junction. this court has several occa- argues that affords an alternative judgments act declaratory held
sions construed when- liberally is to be application remedy, of which termi- issue the decision will justiciable exists there ever v. Fire citing Montgomery Minneapolis Dept. controversy, nate (2d) City 15 W. Barron v. 122; 218 Minn. N. Assn. Relief Farm Mut. 622; N. W. State 212 Minn. Minneapolis, Leighton N. 413; 208 Minn. 294 W. Skluzacek, Co. v. Auto Ins. *6 516, Only Minn. 25 N. W. 263. one (2d) 222 City Minneapolis, v. involved Leighton considered, case—hereinafter cases—the of these matter. a tax in this adopted act was declaratory judgments uniform judicially method of time, Prior to that 1933, L. c. 286.
state (M. 277.02) S. A. property validity personal testing the A tax- delinquent. the tax became until after not available was delinquency in order avoid before penalties the tax paid who payer by the claim that for refundment could be defeated who sued Dig. Supp. & 9516-9520. voluntary. 6 Dunnell, §§ payment theory ordinary denied in the case that relief was Equitable Minn. adequate. Borgen, 106, Wall 152 at law was v. remedy also, and Id. & See, Dunnell, Dig. 9536, Dig. 159. N. W. § provides It true M. S. c. 274 administrative is Supp. § equalization correction, of assessments. review, methods advantage, Minn. of some also, Although L. Rev. 692. See, given taxpayer by chapter this- to seek relief opportunity so com- through appear administrative channels does to be judicial the need for a determination of satisfy prompt as to plete change statutory no re- remedy has been rights. his There from the lating personal property taxes, and, apart specifically prompt judicial to us that no declaratory judgments appears act, except special circumstances, until after available, relief delinquent. believe personal tax has become We intended declaratory judgments provide act was relief now it was then situations, and if the law were the same avail- act was we would conclude that validity of either real or test the taxes. able to However, legislature specific has since method questioned. which real estate taxes can be L. c. 1§ (M. 278.01). taxpayers S. A. Under this their rights can have law, determined with reference real estate taxes incurring without penalty and running without the risk of having the con- payment voluntary. sidered afforded Having specific statutory remedy, we feel legislature that the intended to ques- remove tion of real scope estate taxes from the of the declara- tory judgments act, least where taxes have been assessed and 278.01 can be used. §
In the case Leighton City v. of Minneapolis, Minn. N. 263, supra, sought the plaintiff to establish that L. c. providing for a certain tax levy, was unconstitutional. The court, holding the plaintiff was entitled to relief under the declaratory judgments (222 said act, Minn. W. [2d] 264) :
“* * * The act is not an extraordinary but an alternative remedy, remedy where justiciable there is a issue, the decision will terminate controversy. There is such a controversy here, applies.” the act *7 The Leighton case distinguished must be from the case bar at with to the tax, reference real estate because that in case opin- the ion does the not indicate that tax had been give assessed so as to the an opportunity petition file under M. S. A. 278.01. the Here, real estate taxes were for assessed both the years 1945 and and the itself dairy company availed of the provisions of one-half 278.01 the 1945 real estate tax by paying prior May § filing petition its in the manner provided for in that In it claimed the petition that that 1945 tax section. was invalid in described the property petition the was exempt that from question validity The as to the of the 1945 taxation. real estate been determined under that petition, have as provided tax could for if statute, in instituted the of filing peti- 548 been, filing 1 following next before November completed had
tion 1 the to November prior but done, This was not petition. either remedy paying under c. 278 had a still dairy company for before year the current remaining unpaid percent time for the the court before that by applying or November in Inasmuch for the statute. this as payment, waiver before requirements completed were statutory as of these none the statute filing petition, following November next was done. petition, mandatory it dismiss made refer- company was available to the with The same statute was filed under petition tax. No ence to the 1946 estate nor was tax, for of the 1946 real estate 278.01 a determination § availing provisions itself paid. the tax Instead validity real estate tax, of c. 278 to determine rela- petition concluded that inasmuch as company apparently automatically dismissed the 1945 real tax had been tive to estate question by proceedings could be raised exemption the entire remedy. an alternative declaratory act as judgments view of the fact procedure cannot be criticized for this par- find no court on the prior we can determination this that declaratory question judgments before us to whether ticular remedy provides when c. act available as an alternative is specific validity to determine real estate taxes this remedy state. no particular there shall be future confusion
In order that A. c. 278 it enacting hold M. S. point law, we legislature adequate, speedy, to provide the intention of have the of his remedy any taxpayer claim, simple court in by the district matters objections or determined defense, has been partially, claims that his real estate where the or been assessed, or has assessed unfairly, unequally value, its real or actual or that the tax levied greater value than part, is whole or against illegal We the tax so levied. exempt paid, L. c. (M. S. A. believe that enacted legislature when *8 remedy tor purpose providing simple did rather 278) it so c. tax grievances determined, his estate for have real aggrieved taxpayer it never the intention that and that was if his and, proceeding first under this proceed could statute declaratory noncompliance, for then come under dismissed in another manner. judgments act to have the same issue decided real If the circumstances of this case with reference to the act made as an estate taxes the is available remedy special c. 278 for provides remedy alternative when real estate it questioned matters, the determination tax will lead uncalled under the multiplicity suits, which seems We that, circumstances. hold so far as the determination of tax on concerned, matters referred to in 278.01 c. 278 estate § necessary requisites (M. L. c. provides S. declaratory c. known as the uniform not 555), judgments act, is dairy company remedy. available to the as an alternative legislature remedied the defects of the old method of testing personal property under M. A. taxes 277.02. The tax- objections must wait to file his defense or payer the personal prop- erty penalty until the tax has become and if the delinquent, and penalties are sustained the court he then must pay, to the addition the amount the penalty. tax, Because these in procedure, defects we believe that respect with to personal prop- erty taxes relief under the declaratory judgments act is available. The taxpayer commence action under his the declaratory judg- act delinquent ments before the taxes become and before penalty attaches. We therefore hold that declaratory judgments act was available for the purpose determining its ob- jections defenses to the personal assessment of the property taxes under consideration. now
We ask whether the company is entitled to re lief seeks. In passing we are this, considering only matter of property taxes involved in the pleadings, as we already have held herein that the declaratory judgments act is not as to the real estate taxes. available *9 company the dairy of show the allegations
The States, United hereinafter called agreement with the into entered whereby (a) dairy company the on 1944, June government, 9, the plant for necessary develop real estate and to the acquire agreed agreed government milk the products; (b) of dried the manufacture dairy upon completion or from the facility buy plant the .to dairy company; of time to the period it back for lease and then fixing the consideration to be was established for a formula (c) by dairy com- paid and the rent be the by government the paid repurchase facility for of by made the (d) provision and was pany; emergency termination which made dairy company upon by government necessary. its establishment com- plaintiff’s are to and made a part Five exhibits attached are: plaint. They which out un- 9, 1944, The contract of June the basic
(a) .sets derstanding parties between the as outlined above.
(b) amendment of November to the contract June 6,1945, The 1944, completion facility the time for of the 9, which extended It by dairy company recited, however, December facility that “said about the first placed production day April, facility and “That the title to the 1945,” vesting day considered as the Government as of the first 1945.” April, and
(c) warranty deed bill of sale dated 24, 1945, The November by dairy company government virtue of transferred to the here for facility $415,285.51 upon involved the condition date of after the a declaration President of the “if, United premises of America that the above described and said ma States no chinery, equipment personal property longer and are needed part government] of the second party purposes [the * * * United States’, £An to Promote Defense Act life of a lease during the between any parties hereto, time and effective April 1, which became during June dated lease, or renewal of said said party extension life dairy company] pays to part party first the said of the sec [the government] ond a sum of money be determined as here [the parcel after provided, the title land hereinbefore described and the buildings improvements situate thereon, the license agreement rights thereunder, the title to the machinery, equipment and personal property shall revert party said part.” price first repurchase was to be ascertained reducing the sum to the paid company by a fixed percentage annually during term of the lease.
(d) The whereby lease of June government leased facility acquire which it proposed to from the dairy company *10 it “To to the same for a period of (5) five years And To Hold Have beginning on the date when clear title to the facility acquired by Lessor.” The contains provisions lease governing public li- of ability insurance, inspection premises, subletting, operation of facility the as a milk-drying and plant, termination, renewal the parties. provisions, From these it is clear that the principal inter- government est of the was to establish a which plant produce would products the milk then needed a part as of the national defense . From program. inception, its the in facility was possession and under of dairy the control company, subject to the supervision of government. of Paragraph provides: this lease
“During the term lease, this Lessee pay promptly, and of ten to days at least all prior delinquency, assessed or other charges legally he governmental imposed upon or con- a lien against facility any part stitute (Italics thereof” supplied.) amendment, A dated
(e) lease November 1945, fixing the years April 1, from the lease as five 1945. term of alleges that from complaint April 1, The to the “present possession company date” facility “as lessee X of Paragraph United States.” reads: of of United States the President has made “That declaration, plant equipment that said is no July 31, longer effective in said purposes expressed States United by the needed conveyance. plaintiff That has to lease and deed contract, anything United States nor done any payment date made this said property whatsoever to work a reversion title to Bill Sale; Deed and nor has Warranty in said any manner an States in intention its the United signified future.” time doing so be dairy company seeks to re- facts, of these the basis On any immunity not because burden, any possible lieved immunity conceded but because entitled, it is itself “lessor.” its properties, functions, long established
It has are immune from state government federal instrumentalities U. (Wheat.) S. L. ed. M’Culloch v. Maryland, taxation. gov persons The extent to which who deal with the federal 579. proved permitted immunity benefit this should ernment The authorities have been reviewed question. difficult R. A. Inc. 219 Minn. In re Petition court equitable involved owner That case title to of such an owner is respects estate. interest some distinct from that of the dairy similar others above reviewed. parties instruments Apparently, 12 in the lease that they paragraph inserted when felt *11 do not subject to taxation. We decide such a pro would that federal the deprive government would the immunity vision feel, have. We do that however, private otherwise a would cor having to the poration, bargained pay during taxes assessed the term of lease, permitted the should not be to avoid obligation which it voluntarily assumed by asserting rights reserved to the which is a party not to this government, proceeding. The federal claim paragraph only the lease dairy company’s refers to persuade not us. legally assessed does If it was contemplated government the the facility that the interest exempt to the all both real taxes, and personal, paragraph 12 would be meaningless.
It is our judgment, therefore, that while the declaratory judg- ments act is available for purpose of testing validity of a questioned tax levy and assessment as to the property, the dairy company in this action is not entitled to relief under its terms. Having voluntarily assumed to pay tax, it is faced with this dilemma: (a) If it is obligated not to pay tax, it has no question interest in the as will entitle toit a declaratory judg- ment in its favor; (b) if obligated it is pay tax, to it is so be- cause of a duty voluntarily and it is not entitled to a assumed, judgment declaring promise its own pay to the taxes to have been a meaningless thing. For these reasons, the order of the trial court sustaining the demurrers to the complaint is affirmed.2
Affirmed. J. (concurring). Olson, Justice
Julius
I concur in the result.
Peterson, (dissenting). Justice
I from much of the decision as holds that a dissent so may liability tax determined under the personal property have his declaratory judgments act. of what we have said Regardless Leighton legislative I think it was the cases, similar April 14, 1948, following 2On order was entered: Upon petition appellants above entitled in the action for rehearing purpose paragraph opin- for the last clarification 12, 1948, petition by ion filed March due consideration of said court, hereby paragraph opinion it is ordered last filed in day hereby said changed action on the 12th of March 1948 be and is to read as follows: judgment, that, “It is therefore, our while the act purpose testing questioned levy available of a personal property, dairy company as to assessment in this dairy company action is not entitled relief under its terms. Since the voluntarily pay tax, judgment assumed it is entitled declaring promise pay meaningless its own the taxes to have
thing. sustaining For reasons, these order of trial court the de- murrers is affirmed.” *12 liability particular of a for a particular intent exclusively pro- in the personal property tax should be determined ceedings under the statute for the enforcement taxes. Justice (dissenting).
Magnet, I concur in the dissent in of Mr. Justice Peterson. part Justice Matson, (dissenting).
I concur in the Peterson. dissent of Mr. Justice A FEEBLE-MINDED PERSON. WRETLIND, IN RE BERNETTA STATE.1 AND ANOTHER v. SOPHIE HATTON March 1948. 34,579.
No.
1Reported