Village of Glencoe v. County of McLeod
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 1947, 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
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kaufman v. County of Swift (Minn. 1947)
- Pettibone v. Cook County, Minnesota (8th Cir. 1941)
- Township of Normania v. County of Yellow Medicine (Minn. 1939)
- Burns v. Essling (Minn. 1923)
- White v. City of Chatfield (Minn. 1911)
- Bell v. Kirkland (Minn. 1907)
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
Except as to the claim that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations this case is precisely analogous to that in Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515, (11 N. W. Rep. 91.) As in that case, the village authorities paid into the county treasury money of the village, upon an agreement with' the county commissioners absolutely void because the latter had no power to make it. There was no lawful authority on the one side to pay, nor on the other to receive, the money. The payment and receipt of it having been wrongful, a right of action in behalf of the village to recover it accrued at once, without any previous express demand. Dill v. Inhabitants of Wareham, 7 Met. 438; Earle v. Bickford, 6 Allen, 549. It is only where the receipt of money is lawful, as where the owner of it pays or delivers it to another, (even though it be by mistake of fact,) that an express demand before suit is necessary. When the receipt of it is wrongful, as in this ease, the possession continues to be wrongful. The cause of action was therefore barred long before the action was commenced, and the demurrer to the complaint ought on that ground to have been sustained.
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.