Eckels v. Krober
| Decision Date | 27 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 32250. |
| Parties | ECKELS v. KROBER et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Canadian County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.
Action by R. E. Eckels against B. J. Krober and others to quiet title to real estate, wherein defendants filed a cross-petition. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When a notice of resale for delinquent taxes (68 O.S.1941 § 432b) is erroneous or inexact as to the land description, the court may examine into the law or fact question to determine whether such notice is in substantial compliance with such statute.
2. In a notice of resale of land prescribed by 68 O.S.1941 § 432b the description of the land is sufficient if the notice as a whole will enable the owner and prospective purchasers to become informed that certain land is to be sold and enable them to identify and locate the land with substantial centainty. In determining such matters a fact question may be involved and the trial court's determination in that respect will not be disturbed by this court unless clearly against the weight of the evidence.
3. Record examined, and held, that the general finding of the trial court having the effect of a finding that the notice of resale failed to substantially comply with statute, is not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Roger L. Stephans and Paul Brown, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Adams & Adams, of Guthrie, and H. L. Fogg and A. Francis Porta, both of El Reno, for defendants in error.
R. E Eckels instituted this action to quiet title to real estate. Plaintiff deraigned title through a certain resale tax deed. Defendants, heirs of J. P Roush, deceased, the record owner of the land at date of resale, filed answer and cross-petition alleging several irregularities in the proceedings leading up to the resale and prayed judgment for cancellation of the resale tax deed.
Judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
No findings of fact were requested. The trial court made a general finding that the resale deed was invalid and should be cancelled for the reasons set forth in defendants' cross-petition. At the trial defendants contended that no sufficient notice of resale was given. Ample tender of delinquent taxes and penalties, and payment of same into court was stipulated. Plaintiff in this appeal presents several propositions in the negative of the contentions of defendants.
As we view it the rights of the parties hinge on the question of sufficiency of the notice of resale. Defendants contend the notice is insufficient in that the property was so referred to and described and the classification of this with other properties so arranged and printed as to be confusing and misleading to the extent of invalidity.
In propositions three, four and five plaintiff states that the name of J. R. Rouch in the treasurer's notice instead of the name J. P. Roush did not render the notice a nullity that the classification or description of property in the notice of resale as published was not misleading; that the fact that the notice gave an incorrect date of the original sale to the county was of no consequence.
The land here involved was sold at annual sale beginning on November 4, 1940. The land was not included in the annual sale of November, 1939.
The notice of resale begins with a formal notice as prescribed by statute and thereunder in a sub-head in bold faced type are the words 'Original City of El Reno' followed by a single column of town lot descriptions in smaller print without paragraph indentation between each separate description. Thereafter at a paragraph indentation in the column of small print and appearing in bold faced type are the words 'Boynton Heights No. 1,' (obviously, and admittedly referring to an addition to the City of El Reno), followed in small type by town lots descriptions, and thereafter without change of type size, indentation, paragraph space or further sub-head appears the listing of the lands here involved, as follows:
Thus the description of this rural tract of approximately 80 acres is definitely confused with a list of town lots. While a checking of the published notice with minute care would have disclosed this...
To continue reading
Request your trial