State v. Cudahy Packing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In proceedings in the district court 'for Hennepin county to collect from defendant personal-property taxes for the year 1905, delinquent April 1, 1906, the defendant made answer and^ prayed that the assessment on its property be reduced to $10,400. The matter was tried before Frederick V. Brown, J., who made findings, as stated in the opinion, and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $891.99. Defendant’s alternative motion to amend the findings or for a new trial was…
Read the full summary
In proceedings in the district court 'for Hennepin county to collect from defendant personal-property taxes for the year 1905, delinquent April 1, 1906, the defendant made answer and^ prayed that the assessment on its property be reduced to $10,400. The matter was tried before Frederick V. Brown, J., who made findings, as stated in the opinion, and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $891.99. Defendant’s alternative motion to amend the findings or for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order therefor, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtJaggard, J.
The trial court found that: The personal property of the defendant was valued at $10,400 by the assessor of the city of Minneapolis. Thereafter the city board of equalization increased that assessment $10,000. Thereafter the state board of equalization further increased the assessment by $6,630. The resulting tax of $810.90 was justly and properly levied. Judgment was accordingly entered for the tax, together with the penalty. This appeal was taken from the judgment. Defendant expressly admits: “In fact [it] had personal property consisting of cash, book accounts, and stock of all .kinds,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Raymondv v. Chicago Union Traction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Kipp v. DawsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State v. William Deering & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- State v. Crookston Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In RE PETITION OF HAMM v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Doty Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Lewis CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Lindahl v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Dohs v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Baker v. PaxtonWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.