Eager v. Pugh

Decision Date23 November 1926
Docket NumberCase Number: 17414
Citation1926 OK 925,123 Okla. 207,253 P. 41
PartiesEAGER v. PUGH.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Taxation -- Tax Certificates -- Nature -- How Assignable. While a tax certificate does not pass title to real estate, it is evidence of an equitable interest. A valid assignment can be made only by the owner thereof by executing and acknowledging the same before some officer having power to take acknowledgment of deeds.

2. Same--Assignable by Agent Only When Duly Empowered. A mere agent without power of attorney in fact duly acknowledged in the manner prescribed for conveyance of real estate, cannot assign a tax sale certificate and personally acknowledge the execution of the same.

H. M. Adams, for plaintiff in error.

Fred W. Green and Merle G. Smith, for defendant in error.

ESTES, C.

¶1 Parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, inverse to their order here. On February 5, 1925, Pugh sued numerous defendants to quiet his title as absolute owner of lots 13 and 14 in block 51, in East Guthrie, Okla. Judgment was by default against the defendants, except Eager. Plaintiff avers that he deraigned his title from two sources. It was conceded by defendant, Eager, that title was good in Stapleton from the government by mesne conveyances. Plaintiff proved a warranty deed from Stapleton and wife to Wm. H. Morse and introduced a judgment and order in partition in the district court of Logan county in an action in which Caroline B. Morse sued Robt. N. Morse, a minor finding that Caroline B. Morse and Robt. N. Morse were the sole and exclusive owners in equal shares of these lots, and decreeing partition. Commissioners were appointed and the lots were appraised at $ 3 600. On hearing of the report of the commissioners, the court found that partition of the property could not be made without injury, and that Caroline B. Morse had duly elected to take the property at the appraised value, and offered to pay into court one-half thereof for the use of Robt. N. Morse, all of which was approved and confirmed by the court, and the sheriff was authorized and directed to execute a deed of the lots to Caroline B. Morse. While the sheriff's deed does not appear in the case-made, it is stated that the same was to be supplied, and this statement is signed as correct by the attorney for Eager, and it seems to be conceded that such deed was executed and delivered to Caroline B. Morse. Plaintiff then proved conveyance from her to one Fegan and wife, and from them to plaintiff, Pugh. We think it is legitimate to indulge the presumption in favor of the regularity of the judgment of the trial court, that Wm. H. Morse, grantee from Stapleton, became deceased after receiving the title from the Stapletons, and that Caroline B. Morse and Robt. N. Morse were the sole and only heirs--a presumption consonant with the judgment of the district court in the partition suit. It thus appears that the plaintiff, Pugh, as found by the court, was the owner of the lots as alleged. As we shall see, defendant, Eager, did not claim to be the owner, but claimed to have a lien on the lots. The other chain of title pleaded and sought to be proved by plaintiff had its inception in a resale tax deed from the county treasurer of Logan county to one Williams and from Williams to plaintiff, Pugh. Defendant, Eager, by answer and cross-petition sought to establish a lien upon said lots superior to the claims of plaintiff for the payment of six certain individual tax sale certificates offered in evidence as exhibits as follows: A. and B issued to George Anderson in 1910 on the sale of said two lots to him for the taxes of 1909. C. and D issued by the county treasurer to M. W. Christie in 1911, on the sale of said two lots to him for the delinquent taxes of 1910. and E, and F. issued by the county treasurer to defendant, Eager, in 1913, on sale of the lots to him for the unpaid taxes of 1912. Defendant pleaded and sought to prove assignment to himself of the first four of said certificates. The court found that plaintiff, Pugh, was the owner of the lots, and for the plaintiff against the defendant, Eager, on the first four of said certificates--that they were not the basis for liens on the real estate--and for defendant, Eager, entitling him to judgment for the amount of his last two certificates, establishing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1941
    ......81, 22 N.W. 155; Lessee. of Rice v. Apollos White, 8 Ohio 216; Dolph v. Barney, 5 Ore. 191, affirmed 97 U.S. 652, 24 L.Ed. 1063;. Eager v. Pugh, 253 P. 41, 123 Okla. 207; Wilson. v. Wood, 10 Okla. 279, 61 P. 1045; Municipal. Acceptance Corp. v. Canole 119 S.W.2d 820, 342 Mo. 1170. ......
  • State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann, 36994.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1941
    ......81, 22 N.W. 155; Lessee of Rice v. Apollos White, 8 Ohio, 216; Dolph v. Barney, 5 Ore. 191, affirmed 97 U.S. 652, 24 L. Ed. 1063; Eager v. Pugh, 253 Pac. 41, 123 Okla. 207; Wilson v. Wood, 10 Okla. 279, 61 Pac. 1045; Municipal Acceptance Corp. v. Canole 119 S.W. (2d) 820, 342 Mo. ......
  • Parks v. Lyons, Case Number: 27712
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 18, 1938
    ......Wilson v. Wood (1900) 10 Okla. 279, 61 P. 1045; Mattocks v. McLain Land & Investment Co. (1902) 11 Okla. 433, 68 P. 501; Eager v. Pugh (1926) 123 Okla. 207, 253 P. 41; and Wiggs v. Flatt (1931) 154 Okla. 94, 6 P.2d 690. It was held in Wilson v. Wood, supra, that "a tax ......
  • Casner v. Meriwether, Case Number: 20255
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 14, 1931
    ......, the holder of a tax sale certificate was not entitled to possession of the real estate described therein prior to the issuance of a tax deed ( Eager v. Pugh, 123 Okla. 207, 253 P. 41; Honeyman v. Andrew, 124 Okla. 18, 253 P. 489); and he was not entitled to recover the value of improvements placed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT