Crumb v. Davis

• Decision Date: 14 June 1880
• Parties: CRUMB v. DAVIS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

54 Iowa 25

6 N.W. 53

CRUMB

v.DAVIS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 14, 1880.

Appeal from Howard district court.

This is an equitable action, and involves the title to 80 acres of land. The plaintiff's claim of title is derived from certain tax sale deeds, which were executed by the treasurer of Howard county to one Lawson, on the seventeenth day of October, 1874. The defendant claims under the patent title. There was a trial by the court upon written evidence, and a decree was entered dismissing the petition. Plaintiff appeals.L. Bullis, for appellant.

W. K. Barker and H. T. Reed, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The defendant is the owner of the patent title, which he acquired by a conveyance made by one Paine on the twenty-sixth day of March, 1878. The tax-sale, under which plaintiff claims, was held October 2, 1871. The tax-sale certificates were assigned to one Lawson, to whom the deeds were made. Lawson conveyed to William Goodrich, and he conveyed to D. W. Goodrich, who, on the twenty-first day of March, 1878, conveyed to the plaintiff. It is conceded that the purchasers at the tax sale were illegal, because the purchasers formed an unlawful combination not to bid against each other, and each took his turn at bidding, so as to prevent competition.

The defendant claims that D. W. Goodrich, the plaintiff's grantor, was the real party in interest in making the purchases at the tax sale, and also that, before he conveyed to the plaintiff, he had full knowledge of the fraudulent character of such sales. It is not our purpose to discuss the evidence in detail. It is enough to say that in our judgment the fact that D. W. Goodrich was not a purchaser in good faith is fully established. That he knew the purchase was tainted with said fraudulent combination, and conveyed the land to the plaintiff for the very purpose of avoiding the consequences of the illagal sale, there is abundant evidence. The defendant claims that the plaintiff took the land with notice of the fraudulent tax sales, and therefore is not entitled to protection. This is strenuously denied by the plaintiff, and here is the question of real difficulty in the case. The defendant had negotiated with Payne for the purchase of the land through J. Barker, an agent, and about the nineteenth or twentieth of March, 1878, Barker informed the defendant that he could have it for $900, and the defendant immediately took possession, and did some work on the land.

D. Barker testifies that he saw D. W. Goodrich “either on the nineteenth or twentieth of March in regard to this land. I asked him what he would take for a quitclaim to Davis. I had spoken to him before in regard to the same thing. He said he didn't know as he cared to sell, and he asked what Davis would take for a quitclaim. I said I didn't think Davis wanted to sell; that I was sure he didn't; that he was buying it for a farm. He said he would fix it so Davis would be glad if he had quitclaimed it.”

The sale and conveyance were made to the plaintiff soon afterwards. It is claimed that Crumb, the plaintiff, paid Goodrich $100 in cash. He also gave his promissory note and a mortgage upon the land for $1,000. Goodrich immediately betook himself to the state of Minnesota, and transferred the note and mortgage to one Parker. One C. H. Wood was made a party to a cross-bill filed by defendant, and he averred that he attended the tax sale in question as agent of Goodrich, and purchased a part of the premises at the sale, and knew at the time of the sale how the same was...