Dodrill v. State Bank of Alamogordo.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3479.,3479. |
| Citation | 297 P. 144,35 N.M. 342 |
| Parties | DODRILLv.STATE BANK OF ALAMOGORDO. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
One whose land was not in fact included within complaint or judgment in suit for sale of land for delinquent taxes is not bound by judgment (Laws 1917, c. 80, § 10).
Under section 10, c. 80, Laws of 1917, one whose land was not in fact included within the complaint or judgment in a tax suit is not bound thereby.
That state still owned and held certificates for unpaid taxes, which tax title claimant had never purchased prior to receiving tax deed, presented defense to deed.
Allegation that county still owned and held certificate of sale for unpaid taxes, and that tax title claimant had never purchased it prior to receiving tax deed, presents a defense to the deed.
Court should overrule speaking demurrers.
“Speaking demurrers” should be overruled.
Proceedings in another cause are not subject of judicial notice.
Trial court cannot take judicial notice of proceedings in another cause.
Appeal from District Court, Otero County; Frenger, Judge.
Suit by Taylor R. Dodrill against the State Bank of Alamogordo. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed, and cause remanded.
Allegation that county still owned and held certificate of sale for unpaid taxes, and that tax title claimant had never purchased it prior to receiving tax deed, presents a defense to the deed.
Holt & Holt, of Las Cruces, for appellant.
J. L. Lawson, of Alamogordo, for appellee.
Appellee brought suit to quiet title against appellant, who answered and pleaded a tax title, setting up its tax deed dated August 19, 1926, reciting a sale on April 4, 1919, for delinquent taxes of 1917; the county being the purchaser and transferring to appellant the certificate of sale on July 20, 1926. Appellee filed his reply to this answer, in which he attacked the tax title on several grounds, and, among them, alleged: (a) That no complaint was ever filed against his land in the general tax suit for 1917; (b) no judgment was rendered against his land; (c) no assignment of the certificate was ever in fact made by the county to appellant, and if any such certificate in fact existed, it was still the county's property. To this reply, appellant demurred and was sustained as to several technical defects in the tax proceedings; but as to the three allegations above specified, the trial court held that the reply tendered an issue of fact which the demurrer could not reach. He overruled it and appellant stood upon its demurrer and suffered judgment holding its tax title void. The record recites the hearing of evidence introduced by appellee prior to judgment, and since there is no bill of exceptions we must decide appellant's appeal on the record proper.
[1] 1. It seems to be appellant's position that the curative features of section 10, c. 80, Laws of 1917, cut off inquiry as to the judicial proceedings upon which his tax deed was based. That section reads as follows:
Doubtless if appellee's land was included in the tax suit and judgment rendered against it, the provisions of the foregoing statute would apply. But appellee alleged specifically that his land was not included in the suit- that there was no complaint against his land and no judgment rendered against it. Whatever the effect of the curative provision may be, and however broad its intent and purpose,...
To continue reading
Request your trial