Hilton v. Smith

• Decision Date: 24 December 1895
• Citation: 33 S.W. 464,134 Mo. 499
• Parties: HILTON v. SMITH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

33 S.W. 464

134 Mo. 499

HILTON v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 24, 1895.

TAXATION — COLLECTOR'S DEEDS — WHEN TITLE VESTS — DELINQUENT TAXES — SUIT TO ENFORCE — NECESSARY PARTIES — JUDGMENT — JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT.

1. One who is entitled to collector's deeds, under the revenue law of 1872, for taxes of 1874 and 1875, but has not procured them and had them registered when suit is commenced for delinquent taxes of 1877, is not the owner of the land, within Rev. St. 1889, § 7682, which requires a suit to enforce delinquent taxes to be brought against "the owner of the property."

2. Title to land purchased at sales for delinquent taxes under the revenue laws of 1872 does not vest in the purchaser till delivery of the deeds by the collector.

3. The judgment in a suit to enforce delinquent taxes for 1877, and execution sale thereunder, will divest the title of one who, when the suit was commenced, was entitled to, but had not procured and had recorded, collector's deeds for the years 1874 and 1875, of the same land, under the revenue laws of 1872, though he was not a party to the suit.

4. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction of suits involving the construction of the revenue laws.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the city of St. Louis. Anna M. Hilton, as plaintiff, and Huntington Smith, as defendant, interpleading, claim the damages assessed and paid into court for the land taken. From a judgment for defendant Smith, plaintiff Hilton appeals. Reversed.

M. Hilton, for appellant. Jos. S. Dobyns and H. D. Wood, for respondent.

MACFARLANE, J.

The city of St. Louis, by proceedings in opening Park avenue, condemned portions of lots 5, 6, and 7 of city block No. 1,282, and assessed as damages therefor the sum of $1,940.40. The money was paid into court by the city, and the two interpleaders, Hilton and Smith, each make claim to it. To which one of them the money belongs, depends upon which one was the owner of the land at the time the condemnation took place. One Michael Brady was, as agreed, the common source of title. He died in 1868, and left surviving him his widow and four children. On the 14th of March 1878, the widow, who had elected to take a child's part in the land, and who had in the meantime married one Thomas Bellew, and the children, by guardian ad litem, commenced a proceeding for the partition of the land. A decree of partition and order of sale were rendered March 27, 1878, and on the 20th of April, 1878, the land was sold by a commissioner to John Taylor. The sale was confirmed by the court May 2, 1878, and on the same day a deed was made to the purchaser by the commissioner. July 3, 1878, John Taylor sold and conveyed the land to Manetho Hilton. On July 8, 1879, Hilton conveyed by quitclaim deed to Florence M. Dickey. This deed was not recorded until March 11, 1880. On the 14th of July, 1879, a suit was commenced in the circuit court by the state, at the relation of the collector, against Manetho Hilton and others, to enforce the state's lien for taxes on the lots for the year 1877. Judgment was rendered May 26, 1880. Execution issued November 4, 1880. Sale of lots was made to Mary E. Tanner December 4, 1880. Deed delivered to the purchaser December 11, 1880, and recorded January 7, 1881. Judgment for damages on account of opening the street was entered February 22, 1881. Florence M. Dickey assigned her interest to the fund in court to Silas D. Hilton June 22, 1881, and he assigned to the present interpleader, Anna M. Hilton, on October 22, 1891. Interpleader Smith claims the fund under title to the lots by virtue of several collector's deeds for taxes secured under the revenue law of 1872. But a brief abstract of these sales and deeds need be given here. They were all under special executions upon judgments of the county court. The first was a sale of lot 5, made October 14, 1875, to N. Banks, who assigned his certificate to Smith. Deed to Huntington Smith, September 19, 1879, recorded October 1, 1879. This sale was for the taxes of 1874. A sale of lots 6 and 7 was made to N. D. Allen at the same time, under the same judgment, for the taxes of 1874. The certificate was assigned to interpleader Smith, and a deed was made to him, September 19, 1879, which was recorded, also, October 1, 1879. The lots were all sold again on the 11th day of October, 1876, — this time for the taxes of 1875. At this sale N. D. Allen was also the purchaser. The certificate was also assigned to said Smith, to whom separate deeds for each lot were made by the collector September 19, 1879. These deeds were recorded October 1, 1879. To cure defects in these last deeds, on the 29th day of September, 1880, the collector made corrected deeds to Smith, reciting the purpose for which they were made. These new deeds were recorded October 2, 1880. A number of objections were made to these deeds, but we will assume that they were sufficient to pass the title to Smith. This appeal involves the construction of the revenue laws of the state, hence the jurisdiction of this court.

From the foregoing statement, it appears that interpleader Smith, as assignee of the purchasers, held certificates of the purchase of these lots for the taxes of 1874 and 1875, and was entitled to deeds thereunder at the time the back-tax suit for the taxes of 1877 was commenced against Manetho Hilton and others, and, before judgment was rendered therein, had obtained deeds and put them on record. Neither Smith nor his assignor was made a party to this suit, and it is claimed by counsel for Smith that he stood to the land in the attitude of a second mortgagee in a suit to foreclose the first mortgage, and his right to redeem was not divested by the sale. On the other hand, counsel for interpleader Hilton claims that Smith, as the holder of matured certificates of purchase, was not an owner who is required to be made a party to the suit, within the intent and meaning of the revenue act of 1877. That act requires a suit for enforcing the lien of the state against land for delinquent taxes to be brought against "the owner of the property." Acts 1877, p. 384, § 6 (Rev. St. 1889, § 7682). In giving the construction of that statute, some important principles have been announced by this court which bear more or less directly upon the question here involved. It is only necessary to simply state these. It is held that the proceeding contemplated by the law is not strictly in rem, and that the title acquired by the purchaser is derivative. Graves v. Ewart, 99 Mo. 13, 11 S. W. 971; Powell v. Greenstreet, 95 Mo. 13, 8 S. W. 175; Gitchell v. Kreidler, 84 Mo. 476. While the owner of the land is required to be made a party to the suit, the law is satisfied if one who appears, from the records of land titles of the county, to be the owner, is made a party. Allen v. Ray, 96 Mo. 546, 10 S. W. 153 and cases cited. The rights of mortgagees and beneficiaries in deeds of trust, whose deeds are duly recorded, are not affected by the judgment and...