Brice v. Sayler

• Decision Date: 07 May 1910
• Docket Number: 16,534
• Citation: Brice v. Sayler, 108 P. 815, 82 Kan. 500 (Kan. 1910)
• Parties: HARRY BRICE, Appellee, v. E. T. SAYLER et ux., Appellants, and B. J. G. BETTELHEIM et al., Appellees
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

108 P. 815

82 Kan. 500

HARRY BRICE, Appellee, v. E. T. SAYLER et ux., Appellants, and B. J. G. BETTELHEIM et al., Appellees

No. 16,534

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 7, 1910

Decided January, 1910.

Appeal from Gray district court; GORDON L. FINLEY, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

QUIETING TITLE -- Pleading -- School Land -- Invalid Forfeiture -- Purchase by Holder of Defective Tax Deed -- Parties Entitled to Complain. The state issued to a purchaser a certificate of purchase of school land. A forfeiture was attempted, and a certificate was issued to a second purchaser, but the forfeiture proceedings were void. The land was sold for taxes, a tax deed was issued, and the tax purchaser paid out the first school-land certificate and obtained a patent. The tax proceedings were defective. In an action by the patentee to quiet his title the two holders of school-land certificates set up their titles and asked for affirmative relief. Judgment was rendered for the patentee and only the second certificate holder appealed. Held, it is no longer material whether the plaintiff proceeded under the statute or in equity, and the appellant can not complain of defects in the tax proceedings.

B. F. Milton, James B. Naylor, Robert Stone, and George T. McDermott, for the appellants.

Thomas A. Scates, Albert Watkins, and Harry Brice, for appellee Harry Brice.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

Bettelheim held the land in controversy as the assignee of a valid school-land contract, issued in 1885. An attempt was made to forfeit his rights in 1895, but the proceedings were void. The land was resold in 1901, and Sayler became the assignee of the contract issued upon the second sale. The taxes on the land were not paid and it was sold to the county at tax sale in 1903. Brice took an assignment of the certificate of sale in 1906, procured a tax deed, paid out Bettelheim's contract, and obtained a patent in 1909. It may be conceded for the purpose of the decision that the assignment of the tax-sale certificate and the tax deed were invalid. Before the patent was issued Bettelheim tendered to the county treasurer the amount due on his contract, and Sayler tendered to Brice the amount of the tax lien. Both tenders were refused. After receiving his patent Brice brought suit to quiet his title. Bettelheim answered claiming title under the first school-land contract. Sayler answered claiming title under the second school-land contract. Judgment was rendered for Brice, and Sayler appeals.

In this court Sayler derides the tax proceedings under which Brice claims. Brice scoffs at the forfeiture...