Heasley v. Glinz
| Citation | 142 N.W.2d 606 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8302,8302 |
| Parties | Fay HEASLEY and Selma Heasley, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Arvel GLINZ and Marjorie Glinz, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Syllabus by the Court
The decision rendered in Glinz v. Heasley, N.D., 142 N.W.2d 603, dated May 12, 1966, is res judicata of the claims asserted in the instant case.
Elmo T. Christianson, Bismarck, for appellants.
Hjellum, Weiss, Nerison & Jukkala, Jamestown, for respondents.
This is an appeal brought on the judgment roll under § 28--27--07(1), N.D.C.C., from a judgment entered pursuant to the order of the District Court of Stutsman County dated December 9, 1965, which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, as well as the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants have not appealed from the dismissal of the counterclaim.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that the judgments entered in civil cases Nos. 299 and 300 filed in the District Court of Stutsman County were res judicata of the issues raised in this action.
As the judgments rendered in those actions were appealed, and on appeal were affirmed in the decision rendered by this court on May 12, 1966, Glinz v. Heasley, 142 N.W.2d 603, the trial court's decision in the instant case must be affirmed if those judgments may properly be said to be res judicata of the issues raised in this case.
The land in dispute and the parties are the same in this case as in the previously described cases. In those cases the Glinzes brought an action to quiet title which the Heasleys contested and to which they filed a counterclaim asking that title be quieted in them. The trial court dismissed the complaint of the Glinzes as well as the counterclaim of the Heasleys. On appeal this court affirmed the trial court's judgment, saying:
The Federal lien being superior to the lien for taxes due the State, and the respondents having acquired the property pursuant to the foreclosure of the Federal lien and having received a receiver's deed dated March 25, 1960, the interest of the respondents (Glinzes) in the property in question is superior to that of the appellants (Heasleys).
Glinz v. Heasley, 142 N.W.2d 603 (N.D.1966).
In the syllabus of that opinion we said:
Where a Federal tax lien was filed and perfected on February 24, 1954, and such lien was foreclosed, property sold, and receiver's deed issued March 25, 1960, the interests of the holders of county tax deeds issued for the years 1954 through 1957 for taxes levied and due after perfection of such Federal lien are subject to the interests of the purchasers of the property on foreclosure of the Federal lien.
In the instant case the Heasleys have commenced an action, alleging that they are seized in fee and entitled to the possession of the same property, which title they assert arises out of an auditor's deed which they acquired from Stutsman County through the purchase of tax sale certificates. In their prayer for relief the Heasleys ask that the Glinzes be removed from the premises and that possession of the realty be delivered to them, and that they be awarded $200,000 for lost rents and profits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke
...(N.D.1989); Peacock v. Sundre Township, 372 N.W.2d 877 (N.D.1985); Texaro Oil Co. v. Mosser, 299 N.W.2d 191 (N.D.1980); Heasley v. Glinz, 142 N.W.2d 606 (N.D.1966). E.L. Price Bank, E.L. Price Trust, Elaine Price Trust, and Harold Bergman are also bound by those judgments by virtue of Secti......
-
R. H., In Interest of
...644 (N.D.1971). 1. Is the order of April 27 res judicata on the question of deprivation of the children? Petitioner cites Heasley v. Glinz, 142 N.W.2d 606 (N.D.1966), in support of his position that we may not now review the question of deprivation. This position misapprehends a crucial asp......
-
Flaherty v. Feldner, 870292
...with a party to the action." Sturdevant citing Armstrong v. Miller, 200 N.W.2d 282, 284 (N.D.1972). We explained in Heasley v. Glinz, 142 N.W.2d 606, 607 (N.D.1966), that when final judgment is rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, such ......
-
Mills v. Shoppers Charge Plan, Inc.
...and accordingly we conclude that the United States District Court judgment is res judicata of the issue in this case. See Heasley v. Glinz, 142 N.W.2d 606 (N.D.1966). Section 2 of the Bankruptcy Act invests courts of bankruptcy with original jurisdiction in proceedings under this '(a) The c......