Bagley v. Sligo Furnace Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1894
• Citation: 120 Mo. 248,25 S.W. 207
• Parties: BAGLEY v. SLIGO FURNACE CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

25 S.W. 207

120 Mo. 248

BAGLEY v. SLIGO FURNACE CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 13, 1894.

JUDGMENT FOR TAXES — SETTING ASIDE — EFFECT ON PURCHASER AT EXECUTION SALE.

In an action to set aside an interlocutory judgment for taxes obtained against plaintiff,

on the ground that he had paid such taxes, and the tax book had not been certified, as required by Rev. St. 1879, § 6723, the purchaser of part of the land sold under such judgment was made a party defendant; and the court found that such purchaser bought the land in good faith, without notice of any of the facts alleged in the petition. Held, that it was not prejudicial to such purchaser to set such judgment aside, since the validity of its title could not be determined in such action.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county; C. C. Bland, Judge.

Action by Marcus E. Bagley against the state of Missouri, on the relation of Benjamin Lea, collector of revenue, Crawford county, Mo., and the Sligo Furnace Company, to set aside an interlocutory judgment against plaintiff for taxes, under which part of his land was sold to defendant Sligo Furnace Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant company appeals. Affirmed.

L. B. Woodside, for appellant. C. D. Jamison, for respondent.

GANTT, P. J.

This was a proceeding under section 2217, Rev. St. 1889, by Marcus E. Bagley, to set aside a judgment for taxes under which his land had been sold. At the sale of the land, the appellant, Sligo Furnace Company, was one of the purchasers, without notice of the irregularity alleged. The causes alleged by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment were that he had paid the taxes for which judgment was rendered, and that the tax book had never been certified, as required by section 6723, Rev. St. 1879. The defendant Sligo Furnace Company was made a party to the suit by Bagley, and filed its answer setting forth that it had bought the land in good faith, believing that the judgment was regular and valid in every respect, and that it would get a good title by such purchase, and that it had no knowledge of any of the facts alleged in the petition. The evidence sustained the plea of the Sligo Furnace Company. The court refused the declaration asked by the Sligo Furnace Company, — that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief against it, — but gave a declaration on its own motion, No. 3, hereafter copied, and rendered judgment setting aside the judgment for taxes. The court found that the defendant in the tax suit was notified of the action by publication, and never appeared thereto. It also found that he had paid the taxes that were sought to be recovered in said action, and that the tax book upon which said tax was entered was not certified as required by law. It therefore ordered and adjudged that the said judgment be set aside, and that the petitioner be allowed to answer in said cause. It...