Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co.

County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 12, 1888 · Gilfillan
39 Minn. 380; 40 N.W. 166; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 131 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Moses E. Clapp, Attorney General, and Lind & Hagberg, for plaintiff., J. M. Gilman, for defendant.

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 1903, 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

County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

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 point made by the defendant that the lands involved were exempt from taxation was decided adversely to the defendant in State v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 21 Minn. 472, and County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co., 38 Minn. 397, (37 N. W. Rep. 949,) which decisions we adhere to. Following the decision in the latter ease, we hold that the statute of limitations is no bar to the right of the state to assess the taxes on lands for years in which they were omitted from the assessment.

The statute, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 113,) as amended by Laws 1881, c. 5, § 1, provides that “if any real or personal property shall be omitted in the assessments of any year or years, and the property shall thereby escape taxation, when such omission shall be discovered the county auditor shall enter such property on the assessment and tax books for the year or years omitted, and shall assess the same, and extend all arrearages of taxes properly accruing against said property, with seven per cent, interest thereon from the time said taxes would have become delinquent, and the same shall be extended against such property on the tax-list for the current year.” From the certificate of the findings of fact by the court below it appears that the amount of taxes inserted in the list was made by assessing taxes, interest, and penalties for each year in which the assessment had been omitted.1 The defendant complains ov\y of the penalties *382thus added to the taxes each year. Without inquiring whether the legislature could impose a penalty for non-payment of a tax while one has no opportunity to pay it, it is enough to say it has not assumed to do so. There is no warrant in the statute we have quoted for including penalties in the amount assessed. The answer may be insufficient to entitle the defendant, on the trial below, to prove that such penalties were included, if the evidence had been objected to; but the fact is found, and we must presume it was so found on evidence admitted without objection. The court below will ascertain how much penalties were so included in the assessment, and exclude the amount of them from the amount of the judgment.

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