Dennis v. Robertson
Decision Date | 19 September 1918 |
Citation | 96 S.E. 802 |
Parties | DENNIS. v. ROBERTSON. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Bedford County.
Suit by A. W. Robertson against Charles Dennis. To review decree for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Set aside and annulled, without prejudice to plaintiff to redeem the lot in question according to law, and thereafter to sue.
This suit was instituted by the appellee, plaintiff in the court below, to cancel a certain tax deed and remove the same as a cloud upon the title of the appellee to a certain lot of land purported to be conveyed thereby to appellant from the commonwealth of Virginia.
The Material Facts.
The material facts of the case are as follows:
The appellee, by mesne conveyances, derived title to the lot in question from one W. H. Witt, the deed from the latter and wife being duly executed and recorded in June, 1907. Subsequently the lot was returned delinquent for nonpayment of the tax and levy thereon for the year 1907. The lot was a town lot in Bedford City, in the county of Bedford, being lot 6, in block 6, of what was known as the Greenwood Land Company addition to said town, and was designated as lot 6, in block 6, on the plat or subdivision of land made as provided by Acts of 1887-88, c. 486 (Code 1904, § 2510a), and acts amendatory thereof, and was owned by said W. H. Witt as of January 1, 1907, and at the time of the said conveyance from him in June of that year. The lot was assessed for taxation in 1907 in the name of its owner, W. H. Witt, under the description in the land book or tax list as "1/4 acre lot 6, b 6, G. L. Co." It appears in evidence that the letters "G. L. Co." was the usual abbreviation on the land books of said county to designate lots in said Greenwood Land Company addition and plat or subdivision of land. It was returned delinquent as aforesaid under that description, and subsequently it was advertised for sale, sold, bought by the commonwealth, and such sale to the commonwealth reported by the treasurer to the court, according to law, and the description of the lot in all of these proceedings, including the list in the report of such delinquentsale under sections 662 and 663 of the Code, was substantially the same as that aforesaid, under which the lot was assessed for taxation as aforesaid. The proceedings of such delinquent sale and purchase by the commonwealth were completed in 1910, and were otherwise regular and in accordance with the requirements of law, so that the commonwealth thereby obtained a good title to said lot, being by operation of law the same title which was vested in said W. H. Witt as of January 1, 1907, the appellee being thus divested of the title which he had derived, or would otherwise have derived, by mesne conveyances as aforesaid from said W. H. Witt. And the title to the lot, identified by the description aforesaid, thus stood vested in the commonwealth prior to the institution of this suit.
Neither the appellee, nor the said W. H. Witt, nor any one else under whom appellee claimed title as aforesaid, nor any for them or for any of them, ever redeemed said land from the sale of it aforesaid to the commonwealth.
After the expiration of over four years from the purchase of said lot by the commonwealth as aforesaid, the same not having been redeemed by or sold to any one, certain proceedings were had under Acts 1906, c. 52, p. 41 et seq., for the sale of town lots within the county of Bedford.
The clerk's list in the case before us, so far as material, was as follows:
The treasurer's notice of sale, so far as material, was as follows: "Commonwealth's Sale of Delinquent Lots.
The treasurer's report of sale, so far as material, was as follows:
The tax deed aforesaid was as follows:
Among the facts relied on by appellant is the following: It was alleged and shown by proof in the case that the said W. H. Witt was not assessed for taxation in 1907 with any other tract or parcel of land in Bedford county than said "1/4 acre, lot 6, block 6, G. L. C. Co." lot.
Upon the hearing of the cause on the merits the court below entered the decree complained of, which was, in substance, that the tax deed aforesaid was void, and that the appellee was entitled to the relief sought by his suit, as aforesaid; and the appellant brings error.
Thos. W. Miller, of Roanoke, for plaintiff in error.
Landon Lowry, of Bedford City, for defendants in error.
SIMS, J. (after stating the facts as above). The assignments of error raise but two questions for our consideration, which will be hereinafter stated and decided.
As appears from the above statement, this is a case In which the commonwealth acquired a valid title to the lot in question at a sale of it for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cavender v. Phillips
...115, 117 P. 1005; Palmaffy v. Cort et al., 100 N.J.Eq. 99, 135 A. 463; Scott v. Warden, 111 Cal. App. 587, 296 P. 95; Dennis v. Robertson, 123 Va. 456, 96 S.E. 802; Wilson v. Wood, 10 Okl. 279, 61 P. 1045; Pitkin v. Reibel, 104 Mo. 505, 16 S.W. 244; Dimpfel v. Beam, 41 Colo. 25, 91 P. 1107;......
-
Electrolytic Copper Co. v. Rambler Consol. Mines Corp.
... ... nor has it ever taken steps to redeem. No irregularity in the ... tax proceedings will defeat the statute of limitations ... Wilder v. Dennis, 202 F. 667; Cornelius v ... Ferguson, 121 N.W. 91. The statute does not require the ... name of the owner to be published in the sale notice ... Rush ... v. Co. (Mont.) 93 P. 943; Borthwick v. Johnson, ... (Ore.) 137 P. 784; Dennis v. Robertson (Va.) 96 ... S.E. 802; Harton v. Enslen, (Ala.) 62 S. 696. The ... proceedings vested no legal title in defendant. Plaintiff in ... error has ... ...
-
Bradford v. Schmucker
...a tax sale without some appropriate notice to the owner. Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U.S. 674, 18 S.Ct. 229, 42 L.Ed. 622; Dennis v. Robertson, 123 Va. 456, 96 S. E. 802. And it is settled law in Oklahoma that the owner of a mortgage lien on real estate has such an interest in it that due pr......
-
City Of Richmond v. Monument Ave. Dev. Corp.
...Coles' Heirs v. Jamerson, 112 Va. 311, 71 S.E. 618, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 407; Zimmerman v. Dey, 121 Va. 709, 93 S.E. 597; Dennis v. Robertson, 123 Va. 456, 96 S.E. 802; Attkisson v. Moore, 159 Va. 643, 167 S.E. 367; Minor on The Law of Tax Titles in Virginia, pp. 81, et seq. The defendant corpo......