Herrick v. Niesz
| Decision Date | 24 November 1897 |
| Citation | 18 Wash. 132,51 P. 346 |
| Parties | HERRICK v. NIESZ ET UX. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; William Hickman Moore Judge.
Action by E. M. Herrick against U. R. Niesz and wife. From the denial of defendants' application to have judgment in their favor, for taxes paid, included in decree for plaintiff canceling tax deed, defendants appeal. Reversed.
J. T Ronald, for appellants.
Mitchell Gilliam and Donworth & Howe, for respondent.
This action was brought to cancel a tax deed, and was before this court upon a former occasion (16 Wash. 74, 47 P. 414), where the plaintiff had appealed from a decree sustaining the validity of the deed. This court held it invalid, reversed the cause, and remanded it to the lower court, with directions to enter a decree in favor of the plaintiff. Upon the receipt of the remittitur in the lower court, the defendants applied to the court to include in the decree a judgment in their favor for the amount of taxes paid by them on the lands, and that the same be decreed a lien upon the lands. The court denied their application, and this appeal is taken therefrom.
The respondent contends that the court had no authority in disposing of the case upon the remittitur to render a judgment in favor of the defendants for the amount of the taxes. He contends that the former decree in favor of the defendants was based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by their counsel, and that said findings of fact did not disclose the amount of taxes paid by them, but contained only a general finding that the defendants had paid the taxes for certain years enumerated and, furthermore, that, after the opinion had been filed in this court reversing said decree and directing the lower court to render a decree in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the opinion, said defendants filed a petition for a rehearing, calling the court's attention to the decision in so far as it related to the question of the statute of limitations, but said nothing as to the right of defendants to a judgment for the amount of taxes claimed to have been paid by them; and the respondent here contends that, upon the receipt of the remittitur, the lower court could do nothing more than to render a decree in favor of the plaintiff, giving him the land. The position that the lower court could not proceed contrary to the opinion filed in reversing the cause is, of course, well taken, for any modification of the decision must have been obtained in this court; and the question to be determined is whether the relief asked by the defendants in the final disposition of the cause in the lower court was contrary to the opinion, and that must be determined by the record.
The complaint to set aside the deed and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hole v. Duzer
...to pay the appellants all taxes paid by them on the property, and his payment of money into court for that purpose. (Herrick v. Niesz, 18 Wash. 132, 51 P. 346; 11 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 448, note 3; v. Cullen, 29 Mont. 38, 74 P. 72, 75.) Appellant's title rests upon the tax deed. ......
-
Harper v. Holston
...and injury of the other side, and to the needless waste of the time of the already overburdened trial courts. The case of Herrick v. Niesz, 18 Wash. 132, 51 P. 346, on which the appellants rely, is differentiated by its from the instant case. There the defendant did make an issue on the col......