Dameron v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 01 April 1898
• Citation: 143 Mo. 483,45 S.W. 258
• Parties: DAMERON et al. v. JAMISON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 S.W. 258

143 Mo. 483

DAMERON et al. v. JAMISON.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 1, 1898.

TAX DEEDS — RECITALS — VALIDITY — OBJECTIONS — WAIVER — APPEAL — FINDINGS OF COURT — ESTOPPEL — EJECTMENT — STRIKING ANSWER — TAXES — EVIDENCE — EXCLUSION — JUDGMENT.

1. 2 Wag. St. 1872, § 217, requires that a tax deed show the year in which the judgment for taxes was entered. Held, that a tax deed which recited that the judgment was entered at the "July term," but omitted the year, was void.

2. A tax deed, void because it does not recite the year in which the judgment for taxes was entered, will not be held valid on the ground that, from all of the recitals in the deed, it can be inferred that the judgment was entered at a certain time.

3. In ejectment the plaintiff did not, in his pleading, or in his objections to the introduction of a tax deed in evidence, specifically point out a particular defect which avoided the deed. Held, that the plaintiff was not thereby precluded, on appeal, from claiming that the tax deed under which the defendant claimed was invalid because of such defects.

4. When the court sitting as a jury correctly applied the law, and there is evidence to support its conclusions, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground that its findings are against the weight of the evidence.

5. Owners of land whose title was of record did not claim any interest in the land as against one who paid taxes thereon and improved it. Held, that the owners were not thereby estopped from asserting their title.

6. In ejectment any error in striking parts of an answer relating to the payment of taxes by the defendant, under a belief that the plaintiff did not claim any interest in the land, was harmless, when a judgment for plaintiff, afterwards entered, gave the defendant a lien upon the land for the amount of such taxes.

7. In ejectment any error in excluding evidence that the plaintiff had not paid taxes upon the land, and knew that the defendant was paying them, was harmless, when the payment of the taxes by the defendant was established by other evidence, and the judgment gave him a lien upon the land for the amount of such taxes.

Error from circuit court, Lincoln county.

Ejectment by Malinda Dameron and others against William D. Jamison. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Chas. Martin, for plaintiff in error. Norton & Avery, for defendants in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

This is an action of ejectment. Defendant disclaimed any interest in one of the tracts of land described in the petition, and there is no controversy concerning such tract in this court. The plaintiffs, who recovered below, introduced evidence showing a chain of title from the United States to them. The case is here upon a writ of error sued out by defendant. Several defenses are relied upon to defeat the action. These can be best considered in the order in which they are presented in the pleadings.

1. The answer first sets up that defendant purchased the land at a tax sale on the 5th of October, 1874, and recorded the collector's deed to him on the 22d of February, 1877. This sale was made under the revenue law of 1872. Section 221 of said statute (2 Wag. St 1872, p. 1207) declares that suits against tax purchasers (with certain exceptions, unnecessary to be noticed) shall be commenced within three years from the time when the tax deed is recorded, and not thereafter. This action was not brought until May 18, 1891. The three-years bar is relied upon. Defendant offered his tax deed, which bears date on the 22d of February, 1877. The recorder's certificate shows that it was filed with him on the 20th of February in said year. There is evidently a clerical error in writing one of these dates. The deed recites that judgment was rendered at the "July term" of the county court of Lincoln county, against this land, for the taxes of 1872 and 1873. The year in which this judgment was rendered is not given in the deed. This made it void upon its face. The statute prescribes the form of the deed, and what it shall contain. This form provides for a statement in the deed of the year in which the judgment was entered. 2 Wag. St. 1872, § 217. This was a material matter. The validity of the proceedings might depend upon the date of the judgment. At any rate, the statute required it to be given. A substantial compliance with this requirement is essential to the validity of the deed.

It is argued that, although the deed omits to state the year of the rendition of the judgment, it may reasonably be inferred, from all the recitals taken together, that it was at the July term, 1874. It is not clear that this inference would necessarily be drawn from the statements in the deed. It may be that there is enough in the deed to authorize the conclusion that the judgment should have been entered at July term, 1874; but it does not follow that it was so done. The law, however, requires that "the recitals in the tax deed should be substantially as set forth in the statutory form." Such deed cannot be upheld upon the ground that, although it omits a recital required by the statute, yet it is sufficient if the omitted matter can be reasonably inferred from all the statements in the deed, taken together. It has been ruled otherwise by this court. Hopkins v. Scott, 86 Mo. 140-144; Sullivan v. Donnell, 90 Mo. 278-282, 2 S. W. 264.

It is said that plaintiffs made no specific objection to the introduction of the deed in evidence. It is further urged that, in the replication, they gave certain reasons for their contention that the tax sale was...