Hicks v. Nelson

Decision Date06 December 1890
Citation45 Kan. 47,25 P. 218
PartiesB. F. HICKS v. LEWIS NELSON et al
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Error from Wabaunsee District Court.

EJECTMENT. Judgment for defendants, at the October term, 1887. The plaintiff Hicks brings the case to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Malcolm Nicolson, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. G Cornell, for defendants in error.

STRANG C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

STRANG, C.:

Action in ejectment for the possession of the east half of the southwest one-fourth of section 8, township 12, range 11 Wabaunsee county, Kansas. Defendants below claim the land under a tax title. The statute provides that "any owner, his agent or attorney, may, at any time within three years from the day of sale, and at any time before the execution of the deed, redeem any land or town lot, sold for taxes, or any part thereof, or interest therein, by paying to the treasurer of the county the amount for which said land was sold, and all subsequent taxes and charges thereon," with interest as provided by the act. The statute also requires the county treasurer, at least four months before the expiration of the time limited for redeeming, lands sold for taxes, to publish in some paper published in, or of general circulation in his county, once a week for four consecutive weeks, a list of all unredeemed lands and town lots, describing each tract or lot as the same was described on the tax roll, stating the name of the person to whom assessed, if any, and the amount of taxes charged, and interest, calculated to the last day of redemption, due on each parcel, and give notice that unless such lands or lots be redeemed on or before the day limited therefor, specifying the same, they will be conveyed to the purchaser.

The trial court made the following findings of fact, to wit:

"1. The plaintiff holds title to the real estate in controversy to wit: The east half of the southwest quarter of section 8, township 12, range 11 east, containing eighty acres of land in Wabaunsee county, state of Kansas, by a chain of valid conveyances duly executed and delivered, beginning with a patent from the United States, dated April 15, 1871, and ending with a deed to the plaintiff, dated August 18, 1880.

"2. Said real estate was sold on the 5th day of September, 1882, for the taxes of 1881, and under said sale a tax deed, valid on its face, was, on the 11th day of September, 1885, duly executed and delivered to C. S. Kinderdine, by the county clerk of Wabaunsee county, Kansas, and the defendant Lewis Nelson is in possession of said real estate under title derived from said tax deed, by conveyance duly executed and delivered to him by said Kinderdine on the 11th day of May, 1886.

"3. Prior to the execution of said tax deed, the county treasurer of Wabaunsee county, Kansas, published a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bruce v. Pope
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1917
    ... ... v. Quinchard, 119 Cal. 87, 51 P. 24; People v ... Rose, 167 Ill. 147, 47 N.E. 547; City of Chicago v ... Vulcan Iron Works, 93 Ill. 222; Hicks v ... Nelson, 45 Kan. 47, 25 P. 218; Gage v. Davis, ... 129 Ill. 236, 21 N.E. 788; Backer v. Pyne, 130 Ind ... 288, 30 N.E. 21; Street v. United ... ...
  • Bruce v. Pope
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1917
    ...Quinchard, 119 Cal. 87, 51 Pac. 24;People v. Rose, 167 Ill. 147, 47 N. E. 547;Chicago v. Iron Works, 93 Ill. 222;Hicks v. Nelson, 45 Kan. 47, 25 Pac. 218, 23 Am. St. Rep. 709;Gage v. Davis, 129 Ill. 236, 21 N. E. 788, 16 Am. St. Rep. 260;Backer v. Pyne, 130 Ind. 288, 30 N. E. 21, 30 Am. St.......
  • State ex rel. Hunzicker v. Pulliam
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1934
    ... ... think that such rule should govern upon general ... principles." ...          That ... case was followed in Hicks v. Nelson, 45 Kan. 47, 25 ... P. 218, 23 Am. St. Rep. 709. In the case of Spencer v ... Haug, 45 Minn. 231, 47 N.W. 794, the Supreme Court of ... ...
  • State ex rel. Hunzicker v. Pulliam
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1934
    ...Besides, we would also think that such rule should govern upon general principles." ¶21 That case was followed in Hicks v. Nelson, 45 Kan. 47, 32 Am. St. Rep. 709, 25 P. 218. In the case of Spencer v. Haug, 45 Minn. 231, 47 N.W. 794, the Supreme Court of that state held that: "Section 82, c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT