Minnesota Supreme Court, 1903

Kerr v. City of Waseca

Kerr v. City of Waseca
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 9, 1903
88 Minn. 191; 92 N.W. 932; 1903 Minn. LEXIS 374 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

E. B. Gollester and P. McGovern, for appellant., John Moonan, 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 1965, 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

Kerr v. City of Waseca

Cases that cite this one

2 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

PER CURIAM.

In the very recent case of Fajder v. Village of Aitkin, 87 Minn. 445, 92 N. W. 332, it was held that, where proceedings have been instituted to enforce the collection of a special assessment for sewer construction, under the. pro visions of Laws 1901, c. 167, a property owner has, under G. S. 1894, § 1584, an ample remedy at law for an illegal assessment, and cannot maintain an action in equity to restrain and enjoin the village authorities from transmitting to the auditor of the county a statement of the amount of *192such assessment, that it may be carried onto the annual tax duplicate.

Although the defendant city was organized under a special charter (Sp. Laws 1891, c. 52), the procedure to collect a special assessment for the construction of a sidewalk is precisely the same as that provided for the collection of a'special assessment for the construction of a sewer under the provisions of chapter 167, supra, which governed in the Fajder case. The rule there laid down is strictly applicable here, and, for reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment appealed from will have to be reversed. The plaintiff’s remedy is at law in the proceedings instituted by the county authorities to enforce the collection of taxes.

Order reversed.

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