Bogue v. Miles, 14708.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1941
• Docket Number: 14708.
• Citation: 111 P.2d 1055,107 Colo. 320
• Parties: BOGUE v. MILES et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

111 P.2d 1055

107 Colo. 320

BOGUE v. MILES et al.

No. 14708.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 17, 1941

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1941.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Hon. Henry S Lindsley, Judge.

Suit by Marcus C. Bogue against J. C. Miles and another to quiet title, wherein defendants filed a cross-complaint. To review a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

BAKKE J., dissenting.

Clarence L. Ireland, Harold D. Torgan, and R. H. Blackman, Sr., all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Lee, Doud & Griffith, and Benjamin Griffith, all of Denver, for defendants in error.

BURKE Justice.

These parties appear here in the same order as in the trial court and are hereinafter referred to as there.

Plaintiff brought this suit to quiet title to three lots in Denver. Defendants answered claiming title under their tax deed described in the complaint, and by cross complaint asserted ownership of the fee, prayed that it be adjudicated, and that they have possession and damages for plaintiff's wrongful retention thereof. Appropriate reply followed and the cause was tried to the court resulting in judgment for defendants. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted.

Under the undisputed proof and certain stipulations and concessions, in the trial court and in this, it is agreed that plaintiff is the owner of the fee and entitled to judgment unless divested by defendants' tax deed, and that said tax deed conveys title unless invalid for failure to give notice of intention to issue it, or invalid because of irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Since we conclude that the first objection to this tax deed is good we find it unnecessary to consider the second.

'Every tract of land, and each town or city lot, shall be valued and assessed separately, except when one or more adjoining tracts or lots are returned by the same person, in which case they shall be valued separately and assessed jointly; * * *.' Sec. 139, chap. 142, Vol. 4, '35 C.S.A.

'Before any purchaser * * * of any land, town or city lot * * *, hereafter sold for taxes, * * * of the assessed valuation of $100.00 or more, * * * shall be entitled to a deed * * *, he shall make request upon the county treasurer, who shall then comply with the following, to-wit:' i. e., serve notice 'of such purchase', stating: 'When the applicant or his assignor purchased the land or lot, in whose name it was taxed, the description * * *, for what year taxed * * *, and when the time of redemption will expire, or when the tax deed shall be issued. * * *' And serve such notice on the persons (of whom in this case plaintiff was one) and in the manner directed. Sec. 255, chap. 142, Vol. 4, '35 C.S.A.

In the instant case the three lots here involved were contiguous unimproved, and owned by and assessed to the same person. They were valued at $50 each and scheduled and assessed at a lump sum of $150, which later was reduced to $140. No request was made and no notice given as provided by said section 255. If such notice was required defendants' tax deed could...