Elder v. Fox
| Citation | 18 Colo.App. 263,71 P. 398 |
| Parties | ELDER, County Treasurer, et al. v. FOX et al. |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1903 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.
Action by John J. Fox against C.S. Elder, as county treasurer, the city of Denver. E.S. Allen, and others, defendants. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendant Allen, C.S Elder, as county treasurer, and the city, appeal. Reversed.
J.M. Ellis and N.B. Bachtell, for appellants.
A lot in the city of Denver was sold for a delinquent special-sewer tax. The tax-sale certificate issued under this sale was assigned to the United States Security & Bond Company, and by it to appellee Allen. The owner of the lot brought suit to annul the tax and the certificate; making the city, above company, and the county treasurer defendants. The answer of appellee Allen, while resisting the relief sought by plaintiff, prayed judgment against the city, in the event the tax certificate should be canceled, for the amount due to date of trial upon the certificate. The case was tried to the court, and judgment entered granting plaintiff the relief prayed, and in favor of appellee Allen against the city for the amount claimed in its answer upon the tax-sale certificate. From this judgment the county treasurer and the city of Denver appealed. No appearance here for appellees.
The facts pertinent to this ruling are: In 1880 the city of Denver established a sewer district, and ordered the construction of a sewer. This was built in April 1882. The final estimate of the cost thereof, and the assessment list apportioning it to the lots, was approved by the city council. In November, 1882, the city clerk certified the assessment list to the county clerk, who in December 1882, delivered it to the county treasurer as a part of the assessment for taxes of the city for the year 1882,--this in conformity with the then statute . In 1890 appellee Fox purchased the lot; the vendor thereof to pay all the tax liens, by the same being deducted from the purchase price. Fox, by counsel, had the records in the offices of the county clerk and the county treasurer examined for tax liens. All taxes appearing delinquent were paid, and a tax-sale certificate canceled. The amount so expended was deducted from the purchase price. There was no record of the sewer tax in question in the office of the county treasurer, where it should then have appeared; nor was any record of it found in the office of the county clerk. The grantee, Fox, relying upon this information that all taxes against the lot had been discharged, closed the purchase, since which time he has continuously paid the taxes upon the lot, and had no knowledge whatever of the tax in question, or of the sale at which the tax certificate was issued, or of the existence of this certificate, until a treasurer's deed was being applied for, about the time of the institution of the present suit in August, 1897. The tax certificate involved was issued December 5, 1894, by the county treasurer, at a sale made of the lots for the above sewer tax.
Appellee Fox contends that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Of Beckley v. Wolford
...doctrine of equitable estoppel may be asserted against a municipality, even when acting in a governmental capacity, notably Elder v. Fox, 18 Colo. App. 263, 71 P. 398. But a great author and jurist characterizes such decisions as "exceptional cases, " "a law unto themselves, " and justifies......
-
City of Beckley v. Wolford
...... misrepresentation, but only official laches and inattention. The cases are therefore not parallel. . . A few. decisions have held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel. may be asserted against a municipality, even when acting in a. governmental capacity, notably Elder v. Fox, 18. Colo. App. 263, 71 P. 398. [104 W.Va. 393] But a great author. and jurist characterizes such decisions as "exceptional. cases," "a law unto themselves," and justifies. them only on the theory that the acts which were held to. constitute estoppel amounted to fraud. Dillon, ......
- Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. Stidger