Hume v. Wainscott
| Decision Date | 31 March 1870 |
| Citation | 46 Mo. 145 |
| Parties | JAMES R. HUME, Appellant, v. IRVIN WAINSCOTT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fourth District Court.
O. Guitar, for respondent.
J. R. Shields, for respondent.
The plaintiff, in 1866, purchased certain lands of defendant upon tax sale for delinquencies of 1863, and received the proper deed. He brings ejectment, and the defendant shows that in and before the year 1863, he was the owner of and was in possession of the lands, and that the assessment was made and judgment rendered in the name of one William Sexton, the original owner.
The question involved in this record was fully considered in Abbott v. Lindenbower, 43 Mo. 162, where it was held that such assessment was invalid and did not sustain the judgment and sale.
The plaintiff insists that this construction of the law works a hardship on purchasers, and enables dishonest citizens to evade the payment of their taxes. This can not be so when the assessor does his duty, and under careless or incompetent officers the public interests always suffer and the dishonest always thrive. The law in force when this assessment was made provided that “in all cases” land should be “assessed to the person appearing to be the owner at the time of the assessment,” and authorized the assessor to require, under a penalty, a list of all one's property, to make out a list upon his own view, to enter upon land and make any examination and search which may be necessary, and examine the property, or any person upon oath touching the same. He was thus clothed with ample powers, and, had he obeyed the law, could easily have ascertained that defendant Wainscott, and not Sexton, appeared to be the owner at the time. The land was not assessed to defendant, the advertisement was no notice to him, there was no valid judgment, and the plaintiff acquired no title by the sale.
The other judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norborne Land Drain. Dist. v. Egypt Township, 29691.
...an assessment is fatally defective and void. 19 C.J. 757; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), 2216; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; St. Louis v. Ranken, 96 Mo. 497; Blevins v. Smith, 104 Mo. 590; Sedalia v. Gallie, 49 Mo. App. 396; State v. Hamilton, 293 S.W. 379......
-
Norborne Land Drainage Dist. Co. of Carroll County v. Cherry Valley Tp., of Carroll County
... ... and void. 19 C. J. 757; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4 Ed.), 2216; ... Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162; Hume v ... Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; St. Louis v. Ranken, 96 ... Mo. 497; Blevins v. Smith, 104 Mo. 590; Sedalia ... v. Gallie, 49 Mo.App. 396; ... ...
-
Wellshear v. Kelley
...Mo. 335; Lagroue v. Rains, 48 Mo. 536; Large v. Fisher, 49 Mo. 307; Abbott v. Doling, 49 Mo. 302; Spurlock v. Allen, 49 Mo. 178; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; Yankee v. Thompson, 51 Mo. 234; Smith v. Funk, 57 Mo. 239; Hubbard v. Gilpin, 57 Mo. 441. 3. The circuit court never acquired juris......
-
Gaines v. Fender
...whereas he was not the owner, he having conveyed it to James Morrison, April 3, 1819, and the deed was recorded July 14, 1819. Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145. The defendant's motion for a new trial did not complain of the action of the court in refusing declarations of law and questions ther......