Eaton v. McCarty

Decision Date31 December 1921
PartiesHATTIE EATON, HATTIE EATON, Administratrix of the Estate of PRESSLEY EATON, Deceased, v. E. A. MCCARTY and M. E. MCCARTY, His Wife; NEIL COVENTRY and VERNER COVENTRY, His Wife, Respondents TRUMAN EATON, GLADYS EATON, CLAYTON EATON, Minors, by HATTIE EATON, Their Guardian, ad Litem, MAY THOMAS and OSCAR EATON, Appellants,
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

ACTION TO QUIET TITLE-TAX TITLE-PURCHASE BY ONE WHO LATER BECOMES MORTGAGEE-TAX DEED-PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

1. When one purchases property at a sale for delinquent taxes, the fact that he later takes a mortgage on it does not preclude him from relying on his tax title.

2. Under such circumstances the taxes paid are not part of the mortgage debt.

3. A tax deed is prima facie evidence of the validity of the assessment and levy of the tax, and must be overcome by one asserting the contrary.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. Robert N. Dunn, Judge.

Action to quiet title to real estate. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.

J. Ward Arney, for Appellants.

Resort to tax title to divest the title of the mortgagors was unauthorized by the mortgage contract and the statute.

All payments made by the mortgagee for due and delinquent taxes should have been added to the debt secured by the mortgage and foreclosure should have been brought for the total sum. ( Shepard v. Vincent, 38 Wash. 493, 80 P. 777; Jones v. Black, 18 Okla. 344, 11 Ann. Cas. 753, 88 P. 1052, 90 P. 422; Maher v. Potter, 60 Wash. 443 111 P. 453; Finch v. Noble, 49 Wash. 578, 126 Am St. 880, 96 P. 3; Eck v. Swennumson, 73 Iowa 423, 5 Am. St. 690, 35 N.W. 503; McLaughlin v. Green, 48 Miss. 175; First Nat. Bank v. McCarthy, 18 S.D. 218 100 N.W. 14; Ross v. Frick Co., 73 Ark. 45, 83 S.W. 343; Burchard v. Roberts, 70 Wis. 111, 5 Am. St. 148, 35 N.W. 286.)

Tender is waived where the tenderee takes any position which would render a tender, so long as the position taken by him is maintained, a vain and idle ceremony. (Bundy v. Wills, 88 Neb. 554, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 900, 130 N.W. 273; Piazzek v. Harman, 79 Kan. 855, 98 P. 771; Weinberg v. Naher, 51 Wash. 591, 99 P. 736, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 956.)

Ezra R. Whitla, for Respondents.

There is no rule of law in any state requiring a mortgagee to pay taxes or prevent him from securing title by tax deed when the mortgagor's title is defective. (Allen v. Dayton Hotel Co., 95 Tenn. 480, 32 S.W. 962; McLaughlin v. Acom, 58 Kan. 514, 50 P. 441; Hood & Wheeler v. Clark, 141 Ala. 397, 37 So. 550; Moore v. Boagni, 111 La. 490, 35 So. 716; Jones on Mortgages, 2d ed., par. 713.)

Unless there is a duty to the mortgagee to pay the taxes, he may acquire an outstanding tax title. (Atkison v. Dixon, 89 Mo. 464, 1 S.W. 13; Reimer v. Newel, 47 Minn. 237, 49 N.W. 865; Baldwin v. Gibson, 85 Kan. 267, 116 P. 827; Waterson v. Devoe, 18 Kan. 223; Morrison v. Hampton's Admr., 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1573, 49 S.W. 781; Davis v. Barton, 130 Ind. 399, 30 N.E. 512; Price v. Salisbury, 41 Okla. 416, 138 P. 1024, L. R. A. 1917D, 520; Jones v. Black, 18 Okla. 344, 11 Ann. Cas. 753, 88 P. 1052, 90 P. 422.)

Mortgagee cannot quiet title without paying or tendering the taxes. ( Brandt v. Thompson, 91 Cal. 458, 27 P. 763; Shaner v. Rathdrum State Bank, 29 Idaho 576, 161 P. 90; Dawson v. Overmyer, 141 Ind. 438, 40 N.E. 1065; Montgomery v. Trumbo, 126 Ind. 331, 26 N.E. 54; Gibson v. Johnson, 73 Kan. 261, 84 P. 982.)

"The tax deed is prima facie evidence that the tax was levied and assessed as required by law." (Davis v. Pacific Imp. Co., 7 Cal.App. 452, 94 P. 595.)

"The tax deed has the effect of showing compliance of all requirements of law putting the burden on him who would show otherwise to prove the same." (Best v. Wolford, 153 Cal. 17, 94 P. 98; Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 395, 29 P. 58; Davis v. Pacific Imp. Co., supra.)

The execution of the deed was prima facie evidence of all proceedings. (Wilson v. Locke, 18 Idaho 582, 111 P. 247; Stewart v. White, 19 Idaho 60, 112 P. 677; McGowan v. Elder, 19 Idaho 153, 113 P. 102; White Pine Mfg. Co. v. Morey, 19 Idaho 49, 112 P. 674.)

MCCARTHY, J. Rice, C. J., and Budge and Lee, JJ., concur. Dunn, J., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in this decision.

OPINION

MCCARTHY, J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain land in Kootenai county, instituted by appellant Hattie Eaton, per se, and as administratrix of the estate of Pressley Eaton, deceased, and guardian of her minor children, Truman Eaton, Gladys Eaton, and Clayton Eaton, and by appellants May Thomas and Oscar Eaton, sui juris. The property in controversy was the homestead of Pressley Eaton and appellant Hattie Eaton, his wife. In 1904 he died leaving as his heirs appellant Hattie Eaton and his children, the other appellants. Appellant Hattie Eaton was appointed administratrix of his estate. In 1908 she married Horace Roy, from whom she was divorced the same year. The taxes for 1910 upon said property were not paid. In July 13, 1911, tax certificates, based upon the delinquent 1910 taxes, were issued to Kootenai county and sold on Aug. 29, 1911, to respondent E. A. McCarty. They were assigned by him to respondent M. E. McCarty. On September 6, 1911, appellant Hattie Eaton, under the name of Hattie Roy, mortgaged the premises to respondent M. E. McCarty to secure a note in the sum of $ 175. The mortgage provided:

"If the said Hattie Roy, her heirs, executors or administrators shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, to the said party of the second part, her heirs, executors or assigns the sum of One Hundred and Seventy-five & 80/100 Dollars according to the conditions of One Promissory Note executed by Hattie Roy bearing even date herewith, and also to pay all taxes which are now or may be hereafter assessed on said premises as they shall become due, then this deed to be void. But if default shall be made in the payment of the said sum of money, or the interest, or the taxes, or any part thereof, at the time and in the manner hereinbefore specified for the payment thereof, the said party of the second part, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, are hereby authorized and empowered to sell the hereby granted premises, and convey the same to the purchaser, agreeable to the statutes in such case made and provided, and out of the moneys arising from such sale to retain the principal and interest which shall then be due on said note and all taxes upon said lands, together with all charges, disbursements, and Twenty-five Dollars, attorney's fees, and pay the overplus, if any, to the said party of the first part, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns.

"And the said Hattie Roy does further covenant and agree to and with the said party of the second part,--heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, to pay, or cause to be paid, the sum of money above specified, at the time and in the manner above mentioned, together with all charges and disbursements, and the said Twenty-five Dollars, attorney's fees, if any there shall be. And if default be made by the party of the first part, in any of the foregoing provisions, it shall be lawful for the party of the second part, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or her attorney, to declare the whole sum above specified to be due."

The taxes represented by the tax certificate were not paid and in 1916 respondent M. E. McCarty, after giving notice to appellants of her intention to apply for a tax deed, took a tax deed to the property and sold the same to appellant Neil Coventry. Respondents E. A. McCarty and M. E. McCarty were, at all times covered by the transactions in question, husband and wife. Appellants brought this action to quiet title. From a judgment for respondent this appeal is taken.

There are many assignments of error, but all the material points can be passed upon in the consideration of the one assignment that the court erred in entering judgment for respondents.

Of the several points raised by appellants it is necessary to pass on only two. The first is that, since the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee existed between appellant Hattie Eaton and respondent M. E. McCarty, the latter had no right to rely on the tax title, but should have included the taxes in the mortgage debt and recovered on foreclosure. C. S., sec. 6949, provides: "6949. There can be but one action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real estate or personal property, which action must be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

The action provided for is one in foreclosure. It is held in some jurisdictions that a mortgagee cannot acquire and assert a tax title against his mortgagor. The reason for such decision is summed up by Cooley on Taxation as follows:

"The tax being one that purposely is made to override the lien of the one as well as the title of the other, it might well, as it seems to us, be held that neither mortgagor nor mortgagee was at liberty to neglect the payment, as one step in bettering his condition at the expense of the other, but that the presumption of law should be that the party purchasing did so for the protection of his own interest merely. And so, in general, are the authorities." (2 Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., p. 970.)

It is held, however, that this rule does not obtain where the taxes become delinquent and the property is bought at tax sale before the mortgage is given and the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee arises. (Allen v. Dayton Hotel Co., 95 Tenn. 480, 32 S.W. 962; McLaughlin v. Acom, 58 Kan. 514, 50 P. 441.) In the present case the taxes were for 1910. They were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L. L.C.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2018
    ...Appellants became a part of the indebtedness protected by the Appellants’ and [debtors’] contract of sale. Id. (citing Eaton v. McCarty , 34 Idaho 747, 202 P. 603 (1921) ; Gillette v. Oberholtzer , 45 Idaho 571, 264 P. 229 (1928) ; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Nielson , 62 Idaho 483, 114 P.......
  • Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L.L.C., Docket No. 44584
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2018
    ...Appellants became a part of the indebtedness protected by the Appellants’ and [debtors’] contract of sale. Id. (citing Eaton v. McCarty , 34 Idaho 747, 202 P. 603 (1921) ; Gillette v. Oberholtzer , 45 Idaho 571, 264 P. 229 (1928) ; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Nielson , 62 Idaho 483, 114 P.......
  • International Mortg. Bank v. Barghoorn
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1926
    ... ... (C. S., sec. 6949; Lewis v ... Sutton, 21 Idaho 541, 122 P. 911; Dighton v. First ... Exchange Nat. Bank, 33 Idaho 273, 192 P. 832; Eaton ... v. McCarty, 34 Idaho 747, 202 P. 603; Payette-Boise ... W. U. Assn. v. Fairchild, 35 Idaho 97, 205 P. 258.) ... An ... action is not ... ...
  • Kivett v. Owyhee County
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1937
    ... ... (Secs. 61-1030 and 61-1031, I. C. A. 1932; Armstrong v ... Jarron, 21 Idaho 747, 125 P. 170; Eaton v ... McCarty, 34 Idaho 747, 202 P. 603; Andrews v. North ... Side Canal Co., 52 Idaho 117, 12 P.2d 263; Shail v ... Croxford, 54 Idaho 408, 32 ... ...
  • 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