Hamer v. Glenn Inv. Co.
| Citation | 75 Colo. 423,226 P. 299 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 10676. |
| Parties | HAMER v. GLENN INV. CO. et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1924.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Francis E Bouck, Judge.
Suit by Mabel B. Hamer against the Glenn Investment Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank McLaughlin, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Chase, of Denver, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error brought suit to quiet title, was defeated, and brings error.
The defendants relied on a tax deed, dated November 29, 1919 which recited that the tax sale upon which it depended was 'begun and publicly held on the 20th day of November, A. D. 1916,' and plaintiff in error claims it was void on its face, because the statute (C. L. § 7410), requires the sale to be begun on or before the second Monday in November, which was the 13th. We think the claim must be upheld.
The rule is unquestioned that the sale is invalid, unless held at the time required by the statute. 2 Cooley on Tax. (3d Ed.) 938, 939, 37 Cyc. 1336. Defendant in error invokes C. L. § 7411:
'If, from any cause, real property cannot be duly advertised and offered for sale on or before the second Monday of November, it shall be the duty of the treasurer to make the sale on any subsequent day in which it can be made allowing time for the publication of notice, as provided in this act,'
--but the deed recites no cause for the postponement, and we find no evidence of cause in the record.
The rule is that compliance with every requirement must be affirmatively shown. 37 Cyc. 1516; Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 915, 917, 938, and a deed showing a wrong date is void on its face, Newsom v. Jacobs, 51 Colo. 579, 119 P. 623. Here we have a deed which recites a date of sale unlawful, unless for cause, and shows no cause. How can we say it is not void on its face?
Defendant in error invokes C. L. § 7426, which makes a tax deed prima facie evidence of certain facts, so that they need not be otherwise proved, but the fact that the sale was held at the proper time is not one of them.
Since outside the deed there was no evidence of cause, the question of the competency of such evidence is not before us.
The foregoing conclusions make it unnecessary to consider the other matters noticed in the briefs.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOARD OF COM'RS OF PITKIN COUNTY v. Timroth
...the tax deed shows no cause for the delay of the sale, "nor does the record contain any evidence of cause"); Hamer v. Glenn Inv. Co., 75 Colo. 423, 424, 226 P. 299, 299 (1924) (noting that "the deed recites no cause for the postponement, and we find no evidence of cause in the record"). The......
-
Richardson v. Halbekann
... ... supra, is prima facie evidence of the reasons stated: ... Hamer v. [97 Colo. 181] Glenn Investment ... Co., 75 Colo. 423, 226 P. 299; Kingore v ... Wallace, 85 ... ...
-
Timroth v. Oken
...& County of Denver v. Bach, 92 Colo. 594, 22 P.2d 1114 (1933)(also noting the merits of an alternative rule); Hamer v. Glenn Investment Co., 75 Colo. 423, 226 P. 299 (1924). Similarly, a treasurer's deed is void on its face when the recitals indicate that the final day of the sale occurred ......
-
Munro v. Eshe, 15264.
...opinion will disclose the reason for such conclusion. We think good faith is apparent in the case at bar, as will be shown later. As to the Hamer case, the statute of limitations was not Consequently, this case is within the rule set forth in the cases of De Foresta v. Gast, 20 Colo. 307, 3......