Minnesota Supreme Court, 1880

County of Mower v. Williams

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 22, 1880 · Gilfillan

27 Minn. 25; 6 N.W. 377; 1880 Minn. LEXIS 5 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

C. C. Kinsman, for appellant., E. O. Wheeler, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1900, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Board of County Commissioners v. Fisher (Minn. 1900)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gilfillan, C. J.

The court below appears to have adopted, in calculating the defendant’s salary and clerk-hire, under ■the act of March 4, 1871, (Laws 1871, c. .90,) these two ■propositions:

First. That the salary and clerk-hire for a county auditor’s ■entire official year — that is, the year commencing March ist —is to be calculated upon the equalized value of the taxable property in the county for the year preceding such official jear, so that the salary and clerk-hire for, say the entire official year commencing March 1, 1871, and ending February 29, 1872, is to be calculated upon the equalized valuation for the year 1870.

Second. Where the equalized valuation exceeds $1,500,000, the salary is to be calculated at the rate of five mills on each dollar of the first $100,000, one-half of one mill on the dollar of the excess, up to $2,000,000 of such excess, if there be so much, and one-fifth of one mill on each dollar of the excess .above these two sums, to wit, the $100,000 and the $2,000,000, if there be any such excess; so that if the valuation be just $2,500,000, the salary is to be calculated at the rate of five *26mills on the first $100,000, one-half of one mill on $2,000,-000, and one-fifth of one mill on $400,000. The clerk-hire was estimated on the same principle, but at the proper rate.

We think the court was clearly right upon both of these propositions.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.