final order made in a “summary application in an action after judgment.” The word “for,” as printed in the statute (Comp. Laws), is a clerical or typographical error, and should be read “after.” The same section is found in the statutes of Minnesota, and has been there quite properly construed to authorize an appeal from the order in such cases. Stocking v. Hanson, 22 Minn. 542. To correct mere irregularities, which do not affect the jurisdiction of the court to enter the judgment, and especially those which do not appear affirmatively of record, application should be first made by motion in the court below; and where the judgment is entered without jurisdiction a motion is also the better practice. Of course a judgment will be reversed on appeal if it is void on its face, but mere irregularities should be assailed by motion below. This practice was not pursued in the case at bar. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed. All concur.
John C. Yeatman, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James King,
Jr., Saran Kine, Foster County, State or North Dakota, James Murray, County Treasurer of Foster County, and Walter M. Moore, County Auditor of said County, Defendants; Foster County, James Murray et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Foreclosure of Mortgage—Constitutional Law—Obligation of Contracts—Changing Priority of Liens—Taxation.
1. Chapter 43 of the Laws of 1889, and chapter 152 of the Laws of 1890, in so far as they attempt to make the lien for seed grain furnished thereunder, superior to the lien of a mortgage executed before these statutes were enacted, are repugnant to the provisions of the federal constitution forbidding the impairment by any state of the obligations of a contract.
2. The obligation of the person supplied with seed grain under these statutes to pay the county therefor is not a tax, and cannot be made a tax by the legislature. It is a mere debt.
(Opinion Filed Feb. 23, 1892.)
