Bingham v. Birmingham
Decision Date | 23 February 1891 |
Citation | 103 Mo. 345,15 S.W. 533 |
Parties | BINGHAM v. BIRMINGHAM et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Kansas City charter, § 64, provides that "tax-deeds executed by the city collector shall be substantially in the following form." Section 65 provides that any "person claiming title adverse to the title conveyed by such tax-deed shall be required to prove, in order to defeat the said tax-deed, either that the taxes, interest, and costs were paid before the sale; * * * and if any person claiming title under a tax-deed (executed substantially as provided for in the preceding section) shall be defeated in any suit or proceeding by or against him for the recovery of the real property conveyed, or purporting to be conveyed, by such tax-deed, the successful claimant shall be adjudged to pay such person claiming under such tax-deed" the purchase money, taxes, etc., paid by him. Held that, where a tax-deed is adjudged invalid because not "executed substantially as provided for in the preceding section," the grantee therein may recover purchase money, taxes, etc., paid by him.
Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; TURNER A. GILL, Judge.
Wash Adams and Bingham & Adams, for appellant. W. J. Ward and C. W. Freeman, for respondents.
This ejectment cause has been reargued, and reconsidered, (13 S. W. Rep. 208,) and the results of such reconsideration will now be given, and in order that our views may be readily understood it is necessary to refer to or incorporate in this opinion the sections of the city charter upon which those views are based. Section 64 requires that "tax-deeds executed by the city collector shall be substantially in the following form," giving the prescribed form. Section 65 is the following: Upon the requirements of section 64, supra, it has been ruled that if a tax-deed executed by the collector in place of the words in the form...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bixman
...statute a reasonable construction; one that would effectuate the obvious intention of the legislature, if possible. In Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 Mo. 352, 15 S. W. 533, it was said by this court: "In pursuing this course we do but follow well-approved precedents, and allow the reason of the......
-
The State v. Bixman
...in this regard has been settled by this court. State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 425; United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482; Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 Mo. 345; State Bulling, 100 Mo. 87; Endlich on Construction of Statutes, 344. GANTT, J. Brace, Marshall and Valliant, JJ., concur. BURGESS, C. J......
-
Stubbs v. Mulholland
... ... loc. cit. 574; Railroad v. Brick ... Co., 85 Mo. loc. cit. 307; Ex parte Marmaduke, 91 Mo ... loc. cit. 228, 4 S.W. 91; Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 ... Mo. 345, 15 S.W. 533; Sutherland, Stat. Constr. secs. 218, ... 219; United States v. Freight Assn., 166 U.S. loc ... ...
-
Burris v. Bowers
... ... provides that "at the sale begun and publicly held" ... the word "publicly" is omitted. Sullivan v ... Donnell, 90 Mo. 278; Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 ... Mo. 345. (10) The recital in a deed that the sale was made in ... conformity with all requirements of the law is no proof ... ...