Doherty v. Real Estate Title Ins. & Trust Co. of Phila.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1902 |
| Parties | DOHERTY v. REAL ESTATE TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. OF PHILADELPHIA et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; William Louis Kelly, Judge.
Action by Edward J. Doherty against the Real Estate Title Insurance & Trust Company of Philadelphia and others. Judgment for defendants. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
1. The description of land in a published notice of sale for delinquent taxes is sufficient if it is calculated to enable a person of ordinary intelligence to identify it with reasonable certainty; following decisions of this court referred to in the opinion.
2. The rule above stated applied in the interpretation of characters claimed to be similar to abbreviations and symbols provided for in section 1627, Gen. St. 1894, and held, that certain dots or periods were not essential parts of the description in a published tax list, nor used in compliance with the statute referred to, for the reason that the entire description, including the cross heading immediately preceding such characters, forbid their significance as descriptive of the property.
3. Held, further, that, within the facts in this case, a statement in the 60-day redemption notice provided for in section 1654, Gen. St. 1894, to the effect that the sheriff's fees for the service of the notice would be returned with proof of service, did not invalidate the notice.
4. The payment of taxes delinquent at the time of the issuance of the certificate of sale is essential to its validity; following Trust Co. v. Von Heyderstaedt, 67 N. W. 219, 64 Minn. 409. Samuel Whaley, for appellant.
W. T. McMurran and J. F. Fitzpatrick, for respondents.
This action is to recover possession of lot 1, Lawton's rearrangement of block 23, in Brown & Jackson's addition to West St. Paul. It was tried to the court, who made findings of fact, and held that defendants were entitled to judgment. Plaintiff claims under a tax sale for 1893; also under a state assignment certificate for taxes of 1895. The judgment for the taxes of 1893 was declared void upon the ground that the description in the published delinquent list was defective, as well as for the further reason that the 60-day notice to redeem provided for in section 1654, Gen. St. 1894, was uncertain, in designating the time within which redemption could be made. There are no other alleged errors or defects in the sale of 1893; hence the validity of the tax judgment for that year depends upon the conclusions we are required to adopt as to the two grounds on which it was held invalid.
In order to correctly apprehend defendant's objection to the description of the property in the delinquent list as published, we insert so much of such list as seems necessary to illustrate the gist of the particular point upon which it was held insufficient by the court below.
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦Name of owner and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦subdivision of section, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦lot or block. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Assessment District ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Number six, City of St. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Paul-Continued. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+------------------¦
¦ ¦Lot¦Block¦Total amount ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of delinquent ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦taxes and penalty.¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dollars ¦Cents. ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Brown and Jackson's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Addition to West St. Paul. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Geo. W. Hitchcock ¦.. ¦15 ¦78. ¦08 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦E. Langevin et al ex. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦part taken for W. St. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Paul R. E. & I. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Syndicate Add. No. 6 ¦.. ¦17 ¦33. ¦46 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦P. Limoger, Com'g on S. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦line blk 22 100 ft. E. of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦SW cor. of said blk. th. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦N. 240 ft. th. SE'ly 50 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦ft. th. S. 220 ft. to S. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦line of blk. th. W. 50 ft. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦to beg. part of ¦. ¦22 ¦22. ¦31 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Lawton's Rearrangement ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦of Block 23, Brown and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Jackson's Addition to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦West St. Paul- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Germania Land Co ¦1 ¦.. ¦123. ¦99 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Jas. W. Williams ¦14 ¦.. ¦42. ¦56 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Brown and Jackson's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Addition to West St. Paul- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦John Jerges, W. 28 3/4 ft. of¦1 ¦25 ¦36. ¦11 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Max Folz, N. 1/2 of W. 47 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦ft. of E. 65 25-100 ft. of ¦2 ¦25 ¦32. ¦55 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Max Folz, S. 1/2 of W. 47 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦ft. of E. 65 25-100 ft. of ¦2 ¦25 ¦21. ¦75 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦John Jerges, E. 18 1/2 ft. of¦2 ¦25 ¦20. ¦99 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦C. B. Lawton's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦Rearrangement of N. 1/2, Lots¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦1 and 3, Block 50 Brown ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦and Jackson's Addition ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦to West St. Paul- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦C. A. Morgan ¦1 ¦.. ¦7. ¦80 ¦
+-----------------------------+---+-----+---------+--------¦
¦J. W. Williams ¦4 ¦.. ¦6. ¦69 ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hackney v. Elliott
...intelligence would identify the land described with reasonable certainty, the rule announced in 37 Cyc. 1295; Doherty v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 85 Minn. 518, 89 N. W. 853; and other authorities cited. We recognize the rule as undoubtedly the proper one, but the facts do not come within the......
-
Hackney v. Elliott
... ... removed as a cloud on plaintiff's title, because of tax ... sale certificates issued him ... under our system of real estate taxation no less will ... suffice. [23 ... 357; Fenton v. Minnesota Title Ins. & T. Co. 15 N.D. 365, 125 Am. St. Rep. 599, 109 ... the rule announced in 37 Cyc. 1295; Doherty v. Real ... Estate Title Ins. & T. Co. 85 Minn ... ...
-
National Bond & Security Co. v. Board of Co. Commrs.
...cite and rely upon the following cases: Security Trust Co. v. Von Heyderstaedt, 64 Minn. 409, 67 N. W. 219; Doherty v. Real Estate T. I. & T. Co., 85 Minn. 518, 89 N. W. 853; Hoyt v. Chapin, 85 Minn. 524, 89 N. W. 850. None of the cases cited is in The first one arose under a provision of t......
-
National Bond & Security Company v. Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County
... ... cases: Security Trust Co. v. Von Heyderstaedt, 64 ... Minn. 409, 67 W. 219; Doherty v. Real Estate T.I. & T ... Co., 85 Minn. 518, ... 70, 60 N.W. 809; ... Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jacobson, 75 Minn ... 429, 78 N.W. 10; ... ...