Gilfillan v. Chatterton

• Decision Date: 30 April 1888
• Citation: 38 Minn. 335
• Parties: JOHN B. GILFILLAN <I>vs.</I> JESSE B. CHATTERTON, impleaded, etc.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 335

JOHN B. GILFILLANvs.

JESSE B. CHATTERTON, impleaded, etc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 30, 1888.

Appeal by defendant Chatterton (impleaded with Charles W. Hobart) from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried before Young, J., and a verdict directed for plaintiff. The action was ejectment, and the land in dispute the same as that in Gilfillan v. Hobart, 34 Minn. 67, and 35 Minn. 185.

D. A. Secombe, for appellant.

Gilfillan, Belden & Willard, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The action is in ejectment. As presented on this appeal, the defence rests on two tax deeds, — one purporting to have been made in 1866, on a forfeiture for want of bidders at the sale for the taxes of 1862, and one to have been made in 1873, on a sale for the taxes of 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1870, — and on another tax deed, purporting to have been made in 1884, upon a judgment under chapter 135 of the Laws of 1881. The questions in the case arise on the rulings of the court below sustaining objections to these several deeds, made when they were offered in evidence on the trial. The objection to each of them was that it is void on its face.

The specific objection to each of the first two is that it does not show the taxes to have been delinquent, and consequently does not show any authority to make a sale or declare a forfeiture. According to the law under which the proceedings resulting in those two deeds were had, a tax deed is void on its face, unless it shows that there was authority to make the sale, — unless it shows that the taxes were delinquent. Cogel v. Raph, 24 Minn. 194; O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 27 Minn. 449, (8 N. W. Rep. 166;) Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 259, (6 N. W. Rep. 781;) Sherburne v. Rippe, 35 Minn. 540, (29 N. W. Rep. 322.) Of course, there could be no forfeiture to the state except upon failure to sell for want of bidders, upon an offer at an authorized sale. The fact of delinquency is not stated in either of the two deeds, nor are any facts recited which are necessarily equivalent to a statement of delinquency. There are facts recited from which we are asked to infer or spell out that the taxes were delinquent. The suggestion is urged upon us with a good deal of force; and, if the question were now open, the arguments might be entitled to much weight. But in the case of each deed the recital relied upon has been construed by this court. As the decisions we refer to constitute a rule of property, on the faith of which real estate may have been bought and sold, we are bound to adhere to them. In the first of the two deeds, the recital is: "Said sums being the amount of taxes for the year 1862 with the costs chargeable on said tracts of land." In Sheehy v. Hinds, supra, a precisely similar recital was held not sufficient to show the tax delinquent. In the second deed the recital is: "Being the amount of taxes for the years above...