Boyd v. Ellis

• Decision Date: 22 December 1891
• Citation: 18 S.W. 29,107 Mo. 394
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: BOYD v. ELLIS.

18 S.W. 29

107 Mo. 394

BOYD v. ELLIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 22, 1891.

TAX-TITLES — VALIDITY OF TAX JUDGMENT — PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE.

1. Defendant in ejectment claimed title under a tax deed based on two judgments for taxes against the owner of the property and others. Held, process in each case having been served on the owner, that a judgment in one of the cases was not invalidated because process was not served on another defendant therein.

2. The validity of a sale under a tax judgment is not affected by the fact that the assessment books evidencing the tax were not verified; nor by an assessment in the name of "Hulsted" instead of "Husted;" nor by any other irregularity in the assessment; the validity of the assessment being conclusively established by the judgment.

3. Tax judgments were rendered in 1879, under which land was sold in 1880, and a deed therefor was executed to the purchaser November 16, 1885. On August 15, 1885, a quitclaim deed of the premises was executed by a defendant in the tax judgments to plaintiff, who had actual as well as constructive notice of the judgments. Held, that the fact that he did not have actual notice of the sheriff's sale under the judgments did not entitle him to protection as a purchaser without notice.

4. When a judgment is recovered for back taxes, the lien of the taxes will not be merged in the judgment, so as to expire within the time fixed by statute for the expiration of a judgment lien.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; W. E. BOWDEN, Special Judge.

Action of ejectment by S. H. Boyd against John Ellis. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

White & McCammon, for appellant. T. J. Delaney, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

This is ejectment for a lot in the city of Springfield, commenced August 19, 1885. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment for defendant. B. W. Husted conveyed the lot to one Krudwig in 1874, and at the same time took back a mortgage to secure the purchase price of $150. Both instruments were recorded in that year, but the mortgage debt has never been paid. Plaintiff's title is a quitclaim deed to himself from Krudwig, dated the 15th August, 1885. The defendant, for title, put in evidence two sheriff's deeds, — one to Milner and the other to Lisenby, — both based on tax judgments rendered in 1879; a deed from Milner to Lisenby, dated in 1883; and a deed from the latter to the defendant, dated the 1st July, 1885. The sheriff's deed to Milner is based on a tax judgment against Husted, the mortgagee, only. In the view we take of this case, it is unnecessary to consider the various objections made to that deed. The facts concerning the sheriff's deed to Lisenby are these: The collector of Greene county recovered two judgments in the circuit court on the 24th December, 1879, — one against Husted, Krudwig, and Block for $10.47, for back taxes for the year 1877; and the other against Krudwig and Block for $10.35, for back taxes for the years 1874 and 1876. The sheriff sold the property under special executions issued on these judgments on the 15th May, 1880, and Milner became the purchaser. The deed was made to Lisenby, as assignee of Milner, on the 12th November, 1885, which was after the commencement of this suit. It is suggested that this deed is worthless, because there was no service of process upon Husted. Both judgments appear to have been rendered upon orders of publication. There is a statement in the bill of exceptions to the effect that the publication is regular as to Krudwig and Block in the first case, and as to Husted, Krudwig, and Block in the second case. The second case appears to have been dismissed as to Husted, and there is probably some mistake in the record. Be this as it may, Krudwig, the owner of the property, was duly notified in both cases, and the judgments would not be void as to him, though void as to Husted. A judgment against two persons, one served with process and one not served, is not void as to the person served. As to him the judgment is valid, certainly so in a collateral proceeding like this. Lenox v. Clark, 52 Mo. 115: Williams v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 524, 6 S. W. Rep. 261.

It is next sought to overthrow both judgments because of irregularities in the assessment of taxes. The assessment book for the years 1873 and 1874 does not show that the property was assessed at...