Volume 298 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Mortgages — priority of mechanics lien over mortgage —</bold> <bold>defense not available to mortgagee</bold>. <block_quote> When a bank had knowledge that two parties had an interest in property and of the relationship between them, and then loaned money to one of the parties with knowledge that such money was not being used in any way to improve the property, without the other's knowledge or consent, the bank is estopped from claiming that a joint venture existed and precluded the other party from claiming a mechanics lien.</block_quote>

<bold>Schools and school districts — attachment of unorganized</bold> <bold>territory to school district in another county — compliance</bold> <bold>with required procedures</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In this case involving an attachment of unorganized territory located in St. Louis County to an independent school district having the same boundary as Lake County under the provisions of Minn. St. <cross_reference>122.44</cross_reference>, it is held that the St. Louis County board and<page_number>Page 125</page_number> the State Board of Education followed all procedures required by law in effecting such annexation.</block_quote> <bold>Trial — challenge to constitutionality of statute — delay in</bold> <bold>notifying attorney general — jurisdiction over issues</bold>. <block_quote> 2. While we do not condone the delay in notifying the attorney general of appellant's intention to question the constitutionality of the act involved, we conclude that inasmuch as the trial court has upheld the constitutionality of the act nothing could be accomplished by holding that the constitutional issue was not before the court.</block_quote> <bold>Schools and school districts — attachment of unorganized</bold> <bold>territory to organized school district — constitutionality</bold> <bold>of delegation of legislative power</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Minn. St. <cross_reference>122.44</cross_reference> is not an unlawful delegation of state legislative power to the county board and the State Board of Education.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — constitutionality — equal protection</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Minn. St. <cross_reference>122.44</cross_reference> does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — self-incrimination by testimony before grand</bold> <bold>jury — dismissing of indictment</bold>. <block_quote> Where defendant, pursuant to subpoena, testified before the grand jury in the mistaken belief that he could not be indicted unless he signed a written waiver of immunity, defendant was "compelled to be a witness against himself," and the trial court was correct in dismissing the indictment subsequently returned against defendant by the same grand jury.</block_quote>

<bold>New trial — grounds — inadequacy of damages — discretion of</bold> <bold>trial court</bold>. <block_quote> The question of whether a verdict is adequate, in the first instance, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Where the record indicates that sufficient evidence was presented to cast doubt in the minds of the jurors that all of plaintiff's physical symptoms and special damages were caused or incurred as a result<page_number>Page 193</page_number> of the accident, the trial court did not abuse that discretion in denying plaintiff a new trial based on the claim of inadequate damages.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — receiving or concealing stolen property —</bold> <bold>involvement of defendant — probable cause</bold>. <block_quote> Police officers have probable cause to believe that certain property was stolen and that the defendant was guilty of at least receiving or concealing it when —</block_quote> <block_quote> (1) a "tip" is received from a credible informant, that he believed certain property located in his house, brought there by the defendant, including a grandfather clock, had been stolen;</block_quote> <block_quote> (2) the police had knowledge that an antique grandfather clock had just been stolen;</block_quote> <block_quote> (3) the police were given permission by the owner to enter his house to observe the clock and other property; and</block_quote> <block_quote> (4) the defendant tells a police officer to stay out and demands to know whether or not he is under arrest.</block_quote>

<bold>Taxation — sales tax — service charges added to price of</bold> <bold>meals</bold>. <block_quote> Separately stated mandatory service charges added to the price of meals and paid over to employees are not subject to state sales tax.</block_quote>

<bold>Title registration — proceedings subsequent to initial</bold> <bold>registration — defenses available</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Proceedings subsequent to initial registration under Minnesota's registration of title statutes are summary in nature and only those defects which appear on the face of the documents being attacked, or the satisfaction of a judgment which is the basis of the proceedings, or a redemption from a sale on execution of the judgment may be raised as a defense. Other defects constitute a collateral attack upon such documents or judgments and must be raised in the original action involving the documents or in a direct action to have the sale set aside.</block_quote> <bold>Execution — validity of execution sale — technical errors in</bold> <bold>notice of levy</bold>. <block_quote> 2. A notice of levy is not required by statute or decision in Minnesota to validate a judgment execution sale. The use of such an instrument will not invalidate an otherwise proper sale although the notice of levy contains some technical errors.</block_quote><page_number>Page 418</page_number> <bold>Same — same — sufficiency of posting of notice of sale of</bold> <bold>real estate</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The requirements of posting of notice of sale of real estate in three public places under an execution sale are satisfied by posting within the county in which the real estate is located. A return of service disclosing such posting cannot be attacked in proceedings subsequent to initial registration.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — claimed double jeopardy — trial following</bold> <bold>declaration of mistrial</bold>. A defendant is not placed in double jeopardy when he is retried after the declaration of a mistrial on the motion of the prosecutor, to which defendant objects, even though a jury has been impaneled and sworn, where it appears that the judge could reasonably believe that, because of a newspaper article concerning the trial and other circumstances, it was manifestly necessary in the interests of public justice to declare a mistrial in order to preserve the impartiality of the jury.

<bold>Airports — action seeking inverse condemnation against airport</bold> <bold>operator — sufficiency of complaint</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Where it is alleged, in a mandamus action seeking inverse condemnation against Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as airport operator, that petitioners' properties have been taken, destroyed, or damaged by a tortious invasion of their property rights by reason of noise, vibrations, dust, and oily grime claimed to have been created by aircraft using the airport and allegedly resulting in a loss of market values to those properties, it is held that a claim has been stated for which relief may be granted.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Minn. Const. art. <cross_reference>1</cross_reference>, § <cross_reference>13</cross_reference>, provides: "Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured." However, not every inconvenience, annoyance, or loss of peace and quiet caused by aircraft using an airport will give rise to a cause of action in inverse<page_number>Page 472</page_number> condemnation against the airport operator. Inverse condemnation should be permitted only where such airflights constitute a direct and substantial invasion of property rights of such a magnitude that the owner of the property is deprived of its practical enjoyment and it would be manifestly unfair to the owner to sustain thereby a definite and measurable loss in market value which the property-owning public in general does not suffer. To justify an award of damages, these invasions of property rights must be repeated, aggravated, must not be of an occasional nature, and there must be a reasonable probability that they will be continued into the future.</block_quote> <bold>Metropolitan Airports Commission — operation of airport —</bold> <bold>statutory powers</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Under Minn. St. <cross_reference>360.107</cross_reference>, subds. 1 and 16, MAC has all the powers necessary and convenient to accomplish the objects and perform the duties of maintaining, operating, and managing airports with all powers incident thereto. Thus, it has the power to take aviational easements in order to maintain and operate the airport.</block_quote> <bold>Actions — mandamus to compel airport operator to condemn</bold> <bold>petitioners' property — propriety of class action</bold>. <block_quote> 4. The trial court correctly held that this was not a proper case for treatment as a class action on the grounds that there are a multitude of individual issues and an absence of common issues.</block_quote>

<bold>Negligence — proof by circumstantial evidence — sufficiency</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — trial — evidence of participation in other</bold> <bold>crimes — items seized but not described in search warrant —</bold> <bold>disclosure of unprosecuted accusation</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — robbery conviction — sufficiency of evidence</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction proceeding — denial of relief</bold> <bold>— propriety</bold>.

<bold>Appeal and error — review — assertion of new theory of</bold> <bold>recovery on appeal</bold>.

<bold>Quieting title — action by purchaser at foreclosure sale to</bold> <bold>quiet title — impermissible defense</bold>.