Bidwell v. Webb
| Decision Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Citation | 10 Minn. 41 |
| Parties | IRA BIDWELL vs. SARAH B. WEBB. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Smith & Gilman, and Edward Webb, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. L. Otis, for defendant in error.
This action is brought under § 1, ch. 64 of the Compiled Statutes. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of lots 11 and 12, in block 20, in Roberts' & Randall's Addition to St. Paul, and that the defendant claims an interest and estate in and to the premises adverse to the plaintiff, and demands that such adverse claim, estate, and interest, be determined, etc. The defendant, after taking issue on the allegations in the complaint, sets up a title by purchase at tax sale under the provisions of an act of the legislature, approved March 11, 1862, entitled "An act in relation to the redemption of lands sold for taxes, and relating to taxes and tax sales." She also claims a lien on the premises, in case her title should be adjudged invalid, for the amount of the purchase money and subsequent taxes on the premises paid by her.
The first question to be determined is the validity of the title acquired by the defendant by the tax sale. Section 7 of the act referred to is as follows: That any person having or claiming any right, title, or interest, in or to any land or premises, after a sale under the provisions of this act, adverse to the title or claim of the purchaser at any such tax sale, his heirs, or assigns, shall within one year from the time of the recording of the tax deed for such premises commence an action for the purpose of testing the validity of such sale, or be forever barred in the premises. Sess. Laws, 1862, p. 35. The tax deed of the defendant was recorded on the twenty-third day of December, 1863. This action was commenced in January, 1864. The action having been brought within the time limited by the statute, the validity of the sale is a proper subject of inquiry.
The second section of the act prescribes, among other things, that it shall be the duty of the county auditor to advertise the lands for sale, stating therein that such lands will be sold as forfeited to the state under the provisions of the act, and the time and place of sale, which time shall be on the second Monday in January, 1863. There is no provision making the tax deed evidence of the preliminary proceedings. The notice of sale required by the statute is essential to the validity of the sale; it is a condition precedent to the authority of the officer to sell the land. The referee finds that the notice of sale in this case contained no further description of the premises than the following, viz.:
One...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindgren v. Lindgren
...Hill v. Edwards, 11 Minn. 5 (22); Everest v. Ferris, 16 Minn. 14 (26). A lien upon lands is not an estate or interest therein. Bidwell v. Webb, 10 Minn. 41 (59); Brackett Gilmore, 15 Minn. 190 (245); Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9. The mortgagee as such has no title in the land mortgaged. He......
-
Turrell v. Warren
...under the original statute, it is evident that this claim presented no proper subject for adjudication in this form of action. Bidwell v. Webb, 10 Minn. 41 Brackett v. Gilmore, 15 Minn. 245. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, correct as to him, however erroneous, abstractly considere......
-
Turrell v. Warren
...under the original statute, it is evident that this claim presented no proper subject for adjudication in this form of action. Bidwell v. Webb, 10 Minn. 41 (59;) Brackett v. Gilmore, 15 Minn. 245. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, correct as to him, however erroneous, abstractly con......
-
Donohue v. Ladd
...therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, and the rights of the parties respectively." In Bidwell v. Webb, 10 Minn. 41, (59,) and in Brackett v. Gilmore, 15 Minn. 190, (245,) this court held that a lien was not "an estate or interest in land," but a mere cha......