Klokke v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 24 March 1884 |
| Citation | 1884 WL 9782,109 Ill. 192 |
| Parties | ERNST F. C. KLOKKEv.PHILISKEY E. STANLEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
A petition for mandamus was filed in the Superior Court of Cook county, on the 22d of September, A. D. 1882, in the words following, omitting the caption:
“The petition of Philiskey E. Stanley, of Cook county, State of Illinois, complains that on the 10th day of October, A. D. 1879, at a tax sale then being held in said Cook county, by Samuel H. McCrea, county treasurer and ex officio collector of revenue of said county, the petitioner bid off and became the purchaser at said sale of lot four (4), in block thirty-five (35), in school section addition to Chicago, situate in said Cook county; that thereupon petitioner paid to said collector the sum of $377.33, and afterwards, on said 10th day of October, 1879, the county clerk of said county made out and delivered to petitioner, duly executed and countersigned, a tax sale certificate of purchase of said lot, said certificate being numbered No. 15,663; that said petitioner, as owner of said certificate, duly caused to be served a partly written and partly printed notice of such purchase, on every person in actual possession or occupancy of said premises, and upon all the owners or parties interested in said premises, three months before the expiration of the time of redemption of said sale, in which notice petitioner stated when he purchased said lot, in whose name the same was taxed, the description of the premises so purchased, for what years the same was taxed, and when the time of redemption would expire; that petitioner caused diligent inquiry to be made for the person in whose name said lot was taxed; that upon such inquiry said person could not be found in said county, and thereupon petitioner caused said notice to be published in a newspaper printed in said county, said notice being inserted three times in said newspaper,--the first time not more than five months, and the last time not less than three months, before the time of redemption from said sale would expire; that said premises were not redeemed by any one from said sale during the time limited by law for such redemption; that on the 11th day of November, 1881, petitioner made affidavit, (still being owner and holder of said certificate of sale, supposed by him at that time to be in compliance with the conditions of section 216 of the Revenue act, chapter 120, of the Revised Statutes of the State of Illinois,) stating particularly the facts relied upon as complying with said act, and thereupon delivering said affidavit and certificate of sale, and the receipt for the payment of all taxes upon said premises for the two years following said tax sale, to the county clerk of said county; that petitioner at that time requested said county clerk to execute and deliver to petitioner a tax deed of said premises; that thereupon said county clerk duly filed said affidavit, certificate of sale, and the papers accompanying the same, in the office of the county clerk of said county, and afterwards, to-wit, on November 25, 1881, executed and delivered to petitioner a tax deed of said premises, said tax deed being tax deed No. K 1952; that the papers upon which petitioner obtained said tax deed were, the affidavit of petitioner, the said tax sale certificate, the said tax receipts, the affidavits of William E. Winholtz, George M. French and James Mois, the tax purchaser's notices, the published tax sale notice, and the certificate of publication of said notice, certified copies of which are hereto annexed and made a part of this petition; that Mary Conners was in possession of said premises at the time when notices were served as aforesaid, but they do not show that said notice was at any time served upon said Mary Conners; that said notice was duly served upon said Mary Conners, by delivering a copy thereof to her, on the 15th day of March, 1881; that the same was served upon her by said George M. French, agent of petitioner, for that purpose, but at the time of making said affidavit of service of said notice by said French, the allegation that he had so served said notice upon said Mary Conners was left out of said affidavit by mistake, and that neither petitioner, nor said French, nor said clerk, nor any one else, discovered said mistake until long after the execution and delivery of said tax deed; that petitioner believes it to be the law that said tax deed, so far as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart Wholesale Co. v. District Court of Ninth Judicial District of State
...and by its own record made by it in the lower court and pleaded in said complaint to claim any of the relief prayed for. ( Klokke v. Stanley, 109 Ill. 192; Ames Ames, 75 Neb. 473, 106 N.W. 584; 38 C. J. 574; 1 C. J. 1169, sec. 443, and cases cited.) When at the trial of a cause of action co......
-
State ex rel. Huckfeldt v. State Board of School Land Commissioners
... ... A petition in ... mandamus must show a clear right on the part of the relator ... to have the act performed. ( Klokke v. Stanley, 109 ... Ill. 192; Patton v. Sellars, 179 Ill. 170.) While it ... is true that the land boards are permitted by statute to ... lease ... ...
-
Wehrmeister v. Carlman
... ... Kirby v. City of Rockford, 1936, 363 Ill. 531, 2 N.E.2d 842 ... Of the Illinois cases referred to by the defendant, Klokke v. Stanley, 1884, 109 Ill. 192 and Repp v. Becker, 1925, 238 Ill.App. 64, refer, in part, to some of the general principles applicable to mandamus, ... ...
-
Lawton v. Sweitzer
...of the landowner at the time of the sale of the property for delinquent taxes or special assessments is to be protected. Klokke v. Stanley, 109 Ill. 192. A liberal interpretation must be given the statute providing for the redemption by the original owner from such tax sales. Bowers v. Glos......