Cited by

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 303 , 90 N.W.

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 308 , 90 N.W.

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 308 , a case holding that the state auditor’s determination of the proper county for taxation of personal property is reviewable by certiorari notwithstanding a statute providing the auditor’s determination was “final.” Several cases involving ordinance violations under the Red Wing municipa

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , *483 , certiorari was issued to review a decision made by the state auditor that certain personal property owned by relators was properly listed for taxation and taxable in Carlton County.

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; Minnesota Sugar Co. v. Iverson, 91 Minn. 30 , ; State ex rel.

v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474, 538 , ; U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How.

State v. District Court of Hennepin County, 83 Minn. 464 , State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; State v. Posz, 106 Minn. 197 , ; State v. County Board of Wright County, 126 Minn. 209 , ; State v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155, 160 , .

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

of Isanti County, 98 Minn. 89 , ; P. H. & F. M. Roots Co. v. Decker, 111 Minn. 458 , ; State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

(2d ed.) 296, et seq; State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301

In State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , , it was held that the construction and application by the state auditor of the personal property tax law amounted to the exercise of judicial functions, and that his action was subject to review.

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; State v. Hynes, 82 Minn. 34 , ; State v. Willard, 77 Minn. 190 , ; Clarke v. County of Stearns, 47 Minn. 552 , ; State v. Clarke, 64 Minn. 556 , .

inst whose lands a drainage assessment is levied under the statutes referred to may (1) appeal upon the-statutory grounds ¿nd be heard as to the amount of benefits assessed against his land, or damages awarded to him; (2) by certiorari *262 bring to tbe district court for review any order in sucb proceedings from which no appeal is allowed, and which affects his substantial rights (State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; State v. Posz, 106 Minn. 197 , ) ; and (3) reserve for and urge upon the applicatio

This view of the question is sustained by State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; Minnesota Central Ry.

The office of the writ of certiorari is to review proceedings and judgments of inferior courts and tribunals clothed with authority to act judicially (State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ), where no appeal or other adequate remedy is afforded; and the remedy is appropriate in all such cases, where the substantial legal rights of the applicant have been so far invaded as to prejudicially affect him if the proceeding or judgment remains unreversed.

It follows that the conclusions of the state auditor are in harmony with the rule laid down in State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; State v. District Court of Hennepin County, 83 Minn. 464 , .

Neither is there anything in the suggestion that certiorari ought to lie because there is no other adequate or speedy remedy by which to review the proceedings.” In the case of State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , , certiorari was recognized as the proper procedure to review the action of the state auditor in determining the proper township in which personal property should be taxed.

In State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 304 , it was said that “the exercise of judicial functions may involve the performance of legislative or administrative duties, and the performance of administrative or ministerial duties may, in a measure, involve the exercise of judicial functions.

State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , ; Mitchell v. Clay County (Neb.)

It is wholly unlike those statutes which permit the state auditor and other executive officers of the state to exercise certain power and authority in determining preliminary steps in tax proceedings, such as State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 , .