Hill v. Sherwood
| Decision Date | 18 June 1888 |
| Citation | 96 Mo. 125,8 S.W. 781 |
| Parties | HILL v. SHERWOOD et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
A sheriff's deed to a purchaser at a tax sale under an execution on a judgment rendered in the circuit court on a back-tax bill, for a tax properly levied and assessed, extended and returned delinquent, against a non-resident owner, properly served by publication, cannot, in ejectment by the purchaser, be defeated by showing that the taxes for that year had been paid before the land was returned delinquent and the tax suit instituted. Following Jones v. Driskell, 7 S. W. Rep. 111. SHERWOOD, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court, Newton county; M. G. McGREGOR, Judge.
Joseph Cravens, for appellants. Geo. Hubbert, for respondent.
This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain tract of land in Newton county. The case was tried by the court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts; and the single question presented on the record is whether a sheriff's deed, in regular form, to a purchaser at a tax sale, under an execution on a judgment rendered in an action in the circuit court on a back-tax bill, in favor of the state, at the relation of the collector, for the taxes of the year 1877, properly levied and assessed, extended and returned delinquent, against a non-resident land-owner, properly served by publication of notice, in an action of ejectment by such purchaser against such former land-owner, can be defeated by showing that the taxes on the land for that year had been paid by the owner before the land was returned delinquent, and before the suit was instituted on the back-tax bill, and that there were no taxes actually due and owing on said land at the time it was returned delinquent and the action instituted. This question must be answered in the negative, on the authority of the following cases: Jones v. Driskell, 94 Mo. ___, 7 S. W. Rep. 111; Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 138, 6 S. W. Rep. 62; Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262; Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343. And, as it was so answered by the circuit court, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
...113, p. 174; 14 Am. Jur., sec. 168, p. 368; 34 C.J., sec. 851, p. 552. 20. 3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), sec. 1408, p. 2790; Hill v. Sherwood, 96 Mo. 125, 8 S.W. 781; Cooper v. Gunter, 215 Mo. 558, 566, 114 S.W. 943; Rogers v. Dent, 292 Mo. 576, 584, 239 S.W. 1074, 1076(3), 26 L.R.A. 615, n......
-
Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
...113, p. 174; 14 Am. Jur., sec. 168, p. 368; 34 C.J., sec. 851, p. 552. [20]3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), sec. 1408, p. 2790; Hill v. Sherwood, 96 Mo. 125, 8 S.W. 781; Cooper Gunter, 215 Mo. 558, 566, 114 S.W. 943; Rogers v. Dent, 292 Mo. 576, 584, 239 S.W. 1074, 1076(3), 26 L.R.A. 615, note......
-
Evarts v. Missouri Lumber and Mining Company
...(1) The fact that the taxes for which the land was sold had been paid does not invalidate respondent's sheriff's tax deed. Hill v. Sherwood, 96 Mo. 125; Jones Driskill, 94 Mo. 191; Gibbs v. Southern, 116 Mo. 218. (2) Appellant, Henry E. Evarts, is estopped from disputing the validity of the......
-
Evarts v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co.
...case. Thereupon the court entered judgment for the defendant, stating in the judgment that it did so upon the authority of Hill v. Sherwood, 96 Mo. 125, 8 S. W. 781. After proper steps the plaintiffs 1. At the date of the institution of the tax suit in 1895 Job J. Holliday was the apparent ......