Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Grundysen v. Polk County

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 8, 1894 · Buck, Gileillan, Sick, Took

57 Minn. 212; 58 N.W. 864; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 261 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

William Watts and H. A R. L. Johns, for appellant., A. R. Holston, County Attorney, 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 1897, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Clarke v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1896)
Chapel v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1897)
Sharvey v. Central Vermillion Iron Co. (Minn. 1894)

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

Gileillan, 0. J.

The first question is: When may the board of •county commissioners cancel personal taxes? They have no authority to do it at all, except as it is conferred by statute. The clerk of the District Court issues to the sheriff the warrants for collecting delinquent personal taxes, and, if the latter cannot find property out of which to collect them, he is required to file with the clerk a list of them, with an affidavit of himself or deputy that he has made diligent search and inquiry for goods and chattels wherewith to make such taxes, and was unable to make or collect the same. “The clerk shall deliver such list and affidavit to the board •of county commissioners at their first session thereafter, and they shall cancel such taxes as they are satisfied cannot be collected.” 1878, G. S. ch. 11, §§ 58, 59, as amended by Laws 1885, ch. 2, §§ 5, 6. *215And this is the only authority in the statute to cancel. It is clear enough the legislature did not intend to vest in the board the somewhat dangerous power to cancel a personal tax until a bona fide effort to collect it in the usual way has proved ineffectual.

The next question is: May the sheriff charge the county fees for constructive travel in endeavoring unsuccessfully to collect taxes on the warrants issued to him? That is, if he have warrants against ten different persons living in the same place, and actually travels only ten miles to execute them, ma3r he charge the county for one hundred miles’ travel?

However it may be when a sheriff or constable has different writs, for different persons, in independent proceedings, and serves all of them at the samei place, in respect to his right to charge upon each for mileage to and from that place, though he makes but one trip for all, we think the sheriff who receives the tax warrants at the same time (as all'ought to be issued at the same time) on behalf of the same person, to wit, the county, in the same general proceeding, to wit, the enforcement of personal taxes, can charge the county mileage only for the distance actually and necessarily traveled by him upon all of those uncollected, for which travel he has not received pay on those collected.

The question of pay for1 constructive travel was not presented in Schmid v. County of Brown, 44 Minn. 67, (46 N. W. 145.)

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 864.)

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