Batelle v. Knight

• Decision Date: 05 May 1909
• Parties: CHARLES BATELLE, Plaintiff and respondent, v. KATE F. KNIGHT et al., Defendants and appellants.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

23 S.D. 161, 120 N.W. 1102 (1909)

CHARLES BATELLE, Plaintiff and respondent v KATE F. KNIGHT et al.,

Defendants and appellants

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hand County, SD

Hon. Lyman T. Boucher, Judge

Affirmed.

B. A. Knight and J. H. Cole

Attorneys for appellant.

S. A. Keenan

Sterling & Clark and Frank Turner

Attorneys for respondent.

Opinion filed, May 5, 1909.

CORSON, J.

This was an action instituted by the plaintiff, as assignee of a mortgage executed by Riggs and his wife, who were the owners in fee of a tract of land in Hand county, to quiet the title of the plaintiff’s interest in the same under the said mortgage, and to cancel certain mortgages executed by the defendant Kate F. Knight and her husband to Frank R. Brown, one of the defendants and appellants in this action. Findings and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants have appealed.

The complaint is in the usual form. The defendants, after certain denials and admissions, allege that on the 8th day of August, 1895, the state of South Dakota, by the treasurer of Hand county, duly executed and delivered to one F. Blackman a tax deed for the said premises, in pursuance of the tax sale held in said county on the 7th day of November, 1892, for the taxes due and delinquent on said land for the year 1891, and then proceed, to set out the various tax proceedings resulting in the issuance of said deed. They further allege that while the said deed was duly and legally issued upon a printed form furnished to the State Treasurer, in which were contained, besides other and necessary terms, the words, “and which was the least quantity of the tract above described that would sell for the amount due thereon for taxes, costs, and charges as above specified,” the said words are mere surplusage, and were inserted and left in said deed by mutual mistake and excusable inadvertence, and ask that the said deed be reformed in accordance with the facts and the due and legal certificate of sale issued for said taxes, or that the treasurer of said county be directed to issue a new and proper deed on said certificate, nunc pro tune, in case the court should consider and hold that the said words in any manner invalidate the tax deed so executed. They further allege that more than three years had elapsed since the filing of said deed for record before the commencement of this action, and this action is therefore barred by the statute of limitations relating to recorded tax deeds. They further allege the conveyance of the title by said Blackman and wife to the defendant Knight, and that said defendant Knight and her husband subsequently duly executed and delivered to the defendant Brown the two mortgages referred to in the complaint, one on the 3d day of October, 1901, and the other on the 14th day of July, 1903. They further allege that the validity of said tax deed is necessarily involved in the determination of the issues presented by the pleadings herein. They further allege the payment of certain taxes by the defendant Knight, and pray for judgment for the same in case her title to the property should not be held good by the court.

They further demand judgment against the plaintiff and all claiming or to claim under him, decreeing that the pretended interest, title, and lien of plaintiff in said land is and was extinguished, and that he and they be forever barred and enjoined from setting up any title interest, lien, mortgage, or claim in said land adverse to the defendant, and that said Knight’s title and defendant Brown’s liens by reason of his two mortgages be held good, valid, and sufficient, and also pray for a reformation of the tax deed as hereinbefore set forth to this answer the plaintiff interposes a reply, alleging the invalidity of the defendants’ title by virtue of the tax deed and of the proceedings resulting in the said tax deed.

The case was tried to the court without a jury, and it found the facts substantially as set out in the complaint and answer and reply, and find, among other things, specifically, that “during the said year of 1891 said tract of land was not described in the assessment book containing the assessment of property; that the said tract of land was not listed for the year 1891; that the said tract of land was not described in the duplicate list in the treasurer’s office for the year 1891; that said tract of land was not described in the tax list in the auditor’s office of said county for the year 1891; that said tract of land was not advertised for sale as described in the said tax deed.” From the findings the court concludes as a matter of law: “That the plaintiff has the first valid lien on and against said tract of land, and the whole thereof, under and by virtue of his said mortgage or trust deed, described and set out in finding of fact ‘First’ herein; that said tax deed is void, and conveys no title whatever; that said defendants, and each of them, have no title to the said...