Jones v. Empire Ranch & Cattle Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1914 |
| Citation | 25 Colo.App. 382,138 P. 62 |
| Parties | JONES v. EMPIRE RANCH & CATTLE CO. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Hubert L Shattuck, Judge.
Suit to quiet title by the Empire Ranch & Cattle Company against H.P Jones. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Allen & Webster, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
R.H. Gilmore, of Denver, for defendant in error.
June 8, 1908, appellee (plaintiff below) filed its complaint against many defendants to quiet title to lands in Yuma county. Appellant Jones succeeded to the title of defendant Susan Turpin, and, by permission of court, filed his answer therein, denying all the allegations of the complaint, and alleging fee-simple title in himself to a portion of the lands described in the complaint. The answer further alleged, by way of affirmative defense, that plaintiff's title to the premises was founded upon two tax deeds issued by the county treasurer, and duly recorded; the first being dated October 21, 1903 (date of record not stated), but alleged to be void on its face, the second dated March 25 (24), 1908 (date of record not stated), and alleged to be void on its face, or, if fair on its face, void in fact, for reasons therein stated, the prayer being for specific as well as for general equitable relief. This last tax deed is alleged to be a correction deed of the one first mentioned. Plaintiff, by replication, puts in issue the affirmative allegations of the answer, pleads the five-year statute of limitations (Mills' Annotated Statutes,§ 3904), and admits that its title is founded upon the two tax deeds mentioned. The case was tried to the court, without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, to which a writ of error was sued out in the Supreme Court; the case being properly here under the legislative act of 1911 (Session Laws 1911, p. 266 et seq.).
While a number of assigned errors are urged by appellant, the second assignment of error only need be seriously considered, as it is decisive of this case. Other assignments will be briefly noticed in this opinion. This second assignment pertains to the ruling of the trial court in admitting in evidence, over defendant's objection, the tax deed of March 25th. When this deed was offered in evidence, defendant objected to its introduction because, as stated, it was void on its face, and was wholly void and insufficient in this, to wit: That it is not therein stated any time when the property was exposed for sale; that it is not in conformity to the form of a tax deed prescribed by the statute; and that it omits a recital of the date of the exposure of the premises for sale.
That part of the deed necessary to notice reads as follows: "Know all men by these presents that whereas, the following described property, to wit, [[[describing property] situated in the county of Yuma and state of Colorado, was subject to taxation for the year A.D.1899; and whereas, the taxes assessed upon said real property for the year aforesaid remained due and unpaid at the date of the sale hereinafter named; and whereas, the treasurer of said county did, in pursuance of a notice of sale of the said real property duly published and posted according to law, by virtue of the authority vested in him by law, at tax sale, the sale begun and publicly held on the 1st day of October, A.D.1900, expose to public sale at the office of the county treasurer in the county aforesaid, in substantial conformity with the requirements of the statute in such case made and provided, the real property above described," etc.
It will be observed that the recital quoted does not pretend to state the date upon which the treasurer exposed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial