Cited by

The trial court cites the following language from the early case of State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 126 N.W.

To the extent that our prior cases, including Nyquist v. Town Center, Crow Wing County, 312 Minn. 266 , and State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 126 N.W.

While it is true that in appropriate cases an estoppel or waiver may arise when a taxpayer idly refuses to raise his objections to a proposed special assessment at the time of the hearing (see, State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , [1910]; 13A Dunnell, Dig.

Brown v. City of Red Wing, supra; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 260 , ; State v. Backus-Brooks Co. supra; see, Saxhaug v. County of Jackson, 215 Minn. 490, 497 , 10 N. W. (2d) 722, 726 .

G. S. 1923, § 6713; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 126 N.W.

As said of the prior law in State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 260 , 126 N.W.

State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , .

State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 126 N.W.

G. S. 1923, § 6713; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , .

In State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , 126 N.W.

Respondent relies on State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , , a proceeding to collect delinquent taxes.

See also State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 262 , .

State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; State v. Nelson, 136 Minn. 272 , , .

State v. Minnesota Tax Commission, 135 Minn. 282 , ; State v. Board of Public Works, 134 Minn. 204 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; State v. South St.

This conclusion follows from the decisions of State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , , and Slingerland v. Conn, 113 Minn. 214 , .

“He is held to have waived only such technical objections as go merely to the regularity of the proceedings and do not affect the merits of the tax.” State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 260 , .

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; Madsen v. Larson, 117 Minn. 369 , .

Slingerland v. Conn, 113 Minn. 214 , ; Dahlberg v. Lundgren, 118 Minn. 219 , , distinguishing Bilsborrow v. Pierce, 101 Minn. 271 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; State v. Posz, 106 Minn. 197 , ; State v. Lindberg, 120 Minn. 147 , .

But the general language of the opinion must be taken as confined, and as intended by the court to be confined and applicable, to a determination of the particular questions involved (State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 262 , ), and these clearly did not include the present inquiry.

“In considering bow controlling is tbe language found in an opinion announcing tbe decision of a court,” said Mr. Justice O’Brien, in State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 262 , , “it is always necessary to ascertain tbe circumstances under which it was used.

Ct. 341, 33 L. ed. 687; Case of Joseph Ellis, 21 L. D. 377; Smith v. Murphy’s heirs, 24 L. D. 139; County of Polk v. Hunter, 42 Minn. 312 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255, 263 , ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , , 9 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The former decision was, however, rendered prior to the decision of this court in State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , .

In State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , , the court intimates that where a property owner stands by and witnesses the expenditure of public funds in improvements which confer special benefits upon his property, and where the character of the improvement is such that it must be paid for by an assessment upon the land benefited, he ought not

of Wright County, 97 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; Lindbergh v. County of Morrison, 116 Minn. 504 , .

The defendant insists that the rules stated in State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , , require the sustaining of the assessments here involved.