County of Beltrami v. County of Clearwater
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Clearwater county to recover $23,-•958.58. From an order, Stanton, J., sustaining defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state facts suf- ficient to constitute a cause of action, plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Clearwater county to recover $23,-•958.58. From an order, Stanton, J., sustaining defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state facts suf- ficient to constitute a cause of action, plaintiff appealed. The defendant and respondent, the county of Clearwater, was created from a portion of the territory originally comprising the plaintiff and appellant, the county of Beltrami, in November, 1902. At the time of the division the parent county had' a floating debt of $53,204.58, and a net bonded indebtedness of $112,530.17 — that is, $122,000…
1Opinion of the CourtJaggakd, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
The principal question raised by the demurrer is whether the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action. As pointed out by the trial court, “the statute plainly provides for an equitable adjustment of the indebtedness between the counties.” G. S. 1894, § 634. The new county was subjected to a proportionate share of the indebtedness of the county from which it was formed. This was approximately $23,958.58. It was required by law to pay only interest until maturity and then the principal. The effect of an immediate entry of judgment would be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. Supervisors of the County of ColumbiaNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand LakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. DemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Waupaca County v. Town of MattesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891