Barber v. Evans
| Decision Date | 20 August 1880 |
| Parties | Lloyd Barber v. John Evans, Jr |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county refusing a new trial, the action having been tried before Mitchell, J., without a jury.
Lloyd Barber, appellant, pro se.
Start & Gove, for respondent.
Upon the findings of fact the district court decided that plaintiff was entitled to the judgment prayed for in the complaint, "upon the condition, however, that he first pay to the defendant the amount of taxes, including penalties and costs, for which the premises were sold, together with interest thereon from the date of sale." The correctness of the ruling against the validity of the defendant's claim of title under his tax deeds is not questioned by either party, but the point is made by plaintiff that the condition which was annexed to and made a part of the order for judgment was erroneous, both upon the findings of fact and upon the competent evidence in the case.
The action is brought under the following statutory provisions to wit: "An action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate or interest therein, or lien upon the same, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, lien or interest." (Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 2.) Under this statute, possession alone is sufficient to authorize a party to bring and maintain the action against any one who is claiming an adverse estate or interest in, or lien upon, the premises. Steele v. Fish, 2 Minn. 129 (153.)
The essential allegations of a complaint in such an action include only the fact of possession of the real property in the plaintiff, either by himself or his tenant, and the fact that the defendant is claiming some adverse estate or interest therein, or lien thereon. It is not necessary for the plaintiff, in his complaint, to anticipate or state the nature of the adverse claim, or to meet the same by any allegations in denial or avoidance. If, as in this case, the defendant admits the fact of possession in the plaintiff, and the existence of a hostile claim in himself, which he insists upon asserting, it is for him, in his answer, to disclose the nature of such claim, and the essential facts upon which he relies for its support; and thereupon a case is presented for the determination of the court, upon the pleadings and proofs to be taken, as to the validity of such claim as against the plaintiff, and as to the rights of the respective parties in respect thereto. If the claim rests upon a legal title to the property, the sole question for determination is as to the sufficiency of such title as against the plaintiff's possession, under the rules of law applicable to questions of that character. If the claim is an equitable one, equitable principles and rules must govern in its determination; and in settling the rights of the parties in respect thereto, the court may exercise its equity powers in granting whatever relief the nature of the case upon the facts may require, and upon such terms and conditions as may be necessary to do complete justice.
In this action, defendant, in his answer, claims an estate in fee in the premises under certain tax deeds therein mentioned; and in case his tax title is held to be invalid, he claims a lien upon the property for the amount of taxes, penalty and interest which he paid upon the purchase at the tax sale, with interest thereon from the date of the purchase. As the invalidity of the alleged tax title is not disputed, the only question left for consideration concerns the existence of the alleged lien stated in the answer.
The rights of a purchaser at a tax sale which proves to be invalid and ineffectual to pass any estate in, or legal title to, the property, are such only as are given by statute. In the absence of any statute upon the subject, he acquires no lien upon the land for the amount of the purchase-money, in case his title proves fatally defective, nor has he any legal claim upon the state for the reimbursement of his money. Neither is he entitled to be subrogated to whatever rights the state may have in respect to the collection of any taxes already legally assessed against the land, or for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial