Davis v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 09 April 1886 |
| Citation | 10 P. 532,35 Kan. 196 |
| Parties | LEANDER DAVIS v. PATRICK HARRINGTON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Saline District Court.
ACTION by Davis against Harrington to have certain tax deeds declared void. Judgment for defendant, January 8, 1885. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment affirmed.
John H Mahan, and W. W. Guthrie, for plaintiff in error.
Garver & Bond, for defendant in error.
VALENTINE T. All the Justices concurring.
This was an action brought by Leander Davis, in April, 1884, against Patrick Harrington, to have certain tax titles set aside and held for naught. It appears from the record, among other things, as follows: The plaintiff through proper conveyances holds the original patent title to the east half of the southwest quarter and the west half of the southeast quarter of section 3, in township 13 south, of range 1 west of the sixth principal meridian, in Saline county, Kansas. The defendant through proper conveyances holds title to the property under two tax deeds, one on the east half of the southwest quarter, and the other on the west half of the southeast quarter of said section of land, both tax deeds having been executed on September 10, 1883, upon tax sales made on September 7, 1880, for taxes levied upon the land for the year 1879, which tax deeds were recorded on September 11, 1883. The defendant is in the possession of the property. The case was tried on December 19, 1884, before the court without a jury, and the court took the case under advisement until January 8, 1885, when it made a general finding in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly; and to reverse this judgment the plaintiff brings the case to this court.
In this court the plaintiff makes the following points: (1.) The tax deed for the east half of the southwest quarter of said section is void, because it recites that the land was taxable for the year 1879, and was sold in 1879. (2.) The tax deed for the west half of the southeast quarter of said section is void, because it recites that the land was sold at a sale begun and publicly held "at the county seat of said county." (3.) The sale itself was void, because of an unlawful combination among the bidders. (4.) The sale was also void for the reason that there was no record evidence of any notice of the sale on file. (5.) The tax deeds are void for the further reason, that the recitals in each of them show that the amount required for the final redemption of the land from the taxes was a less amount than the final redemption notice to the owner of the land showed the same to be.
By agreement of the parties, the record was so amended as to take the plaintiff's first point out of the case.
The second point made by the plaintiff is, that the tax deed showed that the land was sold by the county treasurer of Saline county "at the county seat of said county," and did not state or show that the same was sold by him "at public auction at his office." In this respect the tax deeds followed the form given by the statute, and there was not the slightest necessity to deviate from that form in order to make them speak the truth; and hence, in this respect we think the tax deeds were sufficient. (Hobson v. Dutton, 9 Kan. 477, 486.) The sale was in fact made at public auction, and at the treasurer's office.
The third point made by the plaintiff is, that there was an unlawful combination among the bidders at the tax sale. Now nearly all the evidence, including the evidence of several witnesses, was against this claim of the plaintiff, and the court below found generally in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and therefore found that there was no such unlawful combination. Several witnesses, including the purchasers of the property in controversy at the tax sale in question, testified positively that there was no combination, nor any agreement or understanding between the bidders that would prevent competition or bidding by any person who desired to bid, and nothing that would render the sale in the least unfair. There was evidence, however, which tended to show that the bidders did not in fact compete with each other for the purchase of the land; and this resulted principally from the fact that no bidder wanted to purchase the land unless he could get the whole of it for the taxes due thereon. Some of the bidders were speculators, some of them were mortgagees who wished to protect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCague Investment Co. v. Mallin
... ... publication of such notice, is not proof that none was ... published, nor would it vitiate the sale. ( Davis v ... Harrington, 35 Kan. 196, 10 P. 532; Stockle v ... Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615, 2 N.W. 900; Hoffman v. Pack, ... Woods & Co., 123 Mich. 74, ... ...
-
Martin v. Garrett
...the addition of the words, "and the accrued interest, cost of advertising and making and recording tax deed." This court has decided, in 35 Kan. 196, that the consideration a tax deed should include the amount of tax paid, with interest and costs. Sec. 84, chap. 107, Gen. Stat. 1868, under ......
-
Colebrook Guaranty Sav. Bank v. Lambert
...with the law may not be available at all times to prove that the public officers followed the law in the tax proceedings. Davis v. Harrington, 35 Kan. 196, 10 P. 532; Hoffman v. Pack et al. (Mich.) 81 N.W. 934; Cowles v. Adams et al. (Neb.) 110 N.W. 697; Herr v. Graden (Colo.) 81 P. 242. ¶1......
-
Cone v. Usher
... ... sale was valid on its face under the decisions in Bowman ... et al. v. Cockrill, 6 Kan. 311, Davis v ... Harrington, 35 Kan. 196, 200, 10 P. 532, and numerous ... other cases ... The ... defendant complains because the plaintiff [86 ... ...