Roth v. Gabbert
Decision Date | 12 June 1894 |
Citation | 27 S.W. 528,123 Mo. 21 |
Parties | Roth, Appellant, v. Gabbert et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. -- Hon. A. M. Woodson, Judge.
Affirmed.
Spencer & Strop and Huston & Parrish for appellant.
(1) The description in the deeds is the same as that by which the property had been conveyed by the previous owners. It also appears that these parts of lots were inclosed in one inclosure, and used as one property. The property was therefore, properly assessed and sold in a body. 39 Iowa 294; 42 Iowa 85; Cooley on Taxation, 342, and note 1; 493, 494 note 1; O'Neal v. Tyler, 53 N.W. 434, 435, and authorities cited; Black on Tax Titles, sec. 123; Kregelo v. Flint, 25 Kan. 695; Wyman v. Bear, 46 Mich 418; Allen v. Morse, 72 Me. 502; Willy v. Schovel, 9 Ohio 43; Desty on Taxation, 871, notes. (2) The deeds are in the exact form prescribed by the statute (Revised Statutes 1889, page 395, section 1372; Revised Statutes 1889, page 398, section 1381). Deeds following the legislative or statutory form are sufficient. Skinner v. Williams, 85 Mo. 489; Geekie v. Carpenter Co., 106 U.S. 385; Milledge v. Coleman, 47 Wis. 184. The deed sufficiently described the property sold. Skinner v. Williams, 85 Mo. 489; Sparry v. Goodwin, 44 Minn. 207; Reimer v. Newell, 47 Minn. 237; Boyd v. Wilson, 12 S.E. 744; Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173; Geekie v. Carpenter Co., 106 U.S. 385. (3) No sufficient matter was introduced by the defendants as a matter of law to overthrow the tax deed. De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517, and authorities next herein cited. (4) The publication of notice of the making of the deed, unless the property was redeemed, is entirely sufficient. Revised Statutes, 1889, secs. 1351, 1369; Hammond v. Johnson, 93 Mo. 198-214. (5) The deeds are conclusive evidence "that the real property conveyed was duly advertised for sale; that the manner in which the assessment, levy, notice and sale were conducted was in all respects, regular," and as the law directed. Sections 1372, 1373 and 1381, Revised Statutes of 1889. De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517; Keeley v. Sanders, 99 U.S. 441; Allen v. Armstrong, 16 Iowa 508; Gwynne v. Neiswanger, 18 Ohio 400; Haven v. Heigh, 32 P. 519. (6) A tax deed, like any other instrument, is to be construed as a whole, and if any uncertainty in one part is made certain by another, the deed as a whole is sufficient. Haynes v. Heller, 12 Kan. 382-390. (7) The objection made to the deed that the property in the granting clause of the deed is not described as being in Buchanan county, Missouri, is not well taken. Haynes v. Heller, 12 Kan. 382-390. (8) The plaintiff was entitled to a deed to correspond to the facts, and to that end the second deed was properly executed and admitted in evidence. Duff v. Wilson, 90 Mo. 87. (9) The deeds are conclusive that the land was sold in its smallest subdivision. Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162.
R. A. Brown and Justus W. Brockett for respondents.
(1) The form of deed, while it is directed by statute, yet it must be amended or added to and such further recitals be inserted as will make plain all the facts. Section 1372, Revised Statutes, 1889; Gregg v. Gesberg, 113 Mo. 34. (2) Notice is an essential prerequisite. Black on Tax Titles, sec. 205; Reeds v. Morton, 9 Mo. 879; Nelson v. Goebel, 17 Mo. 161; Abell v. Cross, 17 Iowa 171; Dubuque v. Wooten, 28 Iowa 571. (3) A sale is an essential prerequisite before the making of a deed, and the property must be sold in the manner provided by statutes of sale. Under our statute the least quantity that will pay the tax only may be sold. Secs. 1354, 1355, Revised Statutes, 1889; Black on Tax Titles, sec. 264; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 506. The deed is not conclusive as to essential prerequisites. Black on Tax Titles, secs. 451, 452; McReady v. Sexton, 29 Iowa 56; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 46 Mo. 291; Raley v. Quinn, 76 Mo. 263; In re Douglas, 41 La. Ann. 765.
Ejectment for the possession of the north forty-six and two thirds feet of lots 1 to 5, inclusive, block 4, Carbry Addition to the city of St. Joseph, Missouri. The petition is in the usual form and the answer a general denial. The judgment was for defendants. Plaintiff, after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, appealed to this court.
Plaintiff claims title under two tax deeds, only one of which will be set out in full, as the only difference in them is in the use of the word "inclusive" in one only, immediately after the description of the parts of the lots described in the deeds. The deed reads as follows:
The deeds were duly acknowledged. After reading the deeds in evidence the plaintiff proved the value of the monthly rents and profits of the property. There was a vast amount of extraneous evidence introduced on either side.
Defendants contend that the tax deeds are void upon their face, because the lots are not described as being in Buchanan county; that the property was not sold on the first Monday in October, and no cause is stated in the deeds why it was not sold on that day, and was sold on November 4, 1889; that each lot or part thereof was not sold separately as required by statute; that the description of the property is too indefinite and uncertain, and, if not void upon their face, the deeds are void because of the failure of the collector to offer the property for sale for the least quantity that would have paid the taxes and because of the want of any notice of the tax sale.
The objection to the first deed, dated on the tenth day of November, 1891, upon the ground that the description of the land sold is too indefinite and uncertain, we think well taken, and for that reason that deed should be held void on its face. That deed described the land as the north forty-six and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Underwood, 27988.
...Meade v. Jasper County, 266 S.W. 469; Mississippi Fox River Drain. Dist. v. Ackley, 270 Mo. 157; Spurlock v. Dorman, 182 Mo. 242; Roth v. Gabbert, 123 Mo. 21; Castilo v. Highway Commission, 279 S.W. 673; Chicago, Railroad Co. v. Young, 96 Mo. 39; Dougherty v. Excelsior Springs, 110 Mo. App.......
-
Nind v. Myers
...... a law regulating evidence, but an unconstitutional. confiscation of property." And so the courts hold, and I. believe, without exception. Roth v. Gabbert, 123 Mo. 21, 27 S.W. 528; Baumgardner v. Fowler, 82 Md. 631,. 34 A. 537; McCready v. Sexton, 29 Iowa 356-385, 4. Am. Rep. 214; ......
-
Johnson v. Underwood
...Meade v. Jasper County, 266 S.W. 469; Mississippi Fox River Drain. Dist. v. Ackley, 270 Mo. 157; Spurlock v. Dorman, 182 Mo. 242; Roth v. Gabbert, 123 Mo. 21; Castilo Highway Commission, 279 S.W. 673; Chicago, Railroad Co. v. Young, 96 Mo. 39; Dougherty v. Excelsior Springs, 110 Mo.App. 623......
-
Bingham v. Kollman
...Sullivan v. Donnell, 90 Mo. 278; Lynch v. Donnell, 104 Mo. 519; Meriwether v. Overly, 228 Mo. 236; Hill v. Attebury, 88 Mo. 114; Roth v. Gabbert, 123 Mo. 21. (c) The form (Sec. 58, art. 5, Kansas City Charter of 1889) is literally followed in the deed as to the certificate of purchase. This......