Krueger v. Walker
| Decision Date | 15 May 1895 |
| Parties | C. F. KRUGER v. WARREN WALKER, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from O'Brien District Court.--HON. SCOTT M. LADD, Judge.
Action in equity to quiet in the plaintiff the title to two hundred and forty acres of land in O'Brien county, claimed by the defendant. There was a hearing on the merits, and a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. E Long and Warren Walker for appellant.
J. L E. Peck for appellee.
The lands in controversy were purchased from the United States by one Sanders in the year 1857. In October, 1874, they were sold for delinquent taxes; and in January, 1878, redemption from the sale not having been made, treasurer's tax deeds for the land were executed to the purchaser, H. Greve, and duly recorded. The plaintiff claims title from Greve. The defendant claims to be the owner of the land by virtue of a conveyance thereof from the heirs of a grantee of Sanders, and alleges that the tax deeds to Greve were void for the following reasons: (1) Because no notice of the expiration of the right of redemption from the tax sale was ever given as required by law; (2) because the sale was unauthorized, and the deeds were executed and delivered without a compliance with the law. The defendant in a counterclaim asks that his title to the land be quieted as against the plaintiff. In a reply, the plaintiff pleaded that he had been in quiet and exclusive possession of the land more than five years since the recording of the tax deed. The district court quieted the title to the land in the plaintiff, and denied the defendant all relief. Two appeals have been taken in this cause. The first one is reported in 80 Iowa 733. On the second appeal the cause was submitted, and an opinion was filed; but, on the petition of both parties, a rehearing was ordered, and the cause is again submitted for our determination.
I. The objections to the validity of the tax deeds urged in argument are, in effect, that the sale was not free and open to all, but that a fraudulent combination was made by the purchasers to prevent competition. The evidence upon which this objection is founded is, in substance, as follows: In the tax-sale register the sales to the different purchasers are grouped together, apparently showing that each bidder was permitted to take the tracts he desired without interference, and that, when one purchaser was satisfied, another bid until he had obtained all he desired, and that the plan was followed to the end of the sale. The defendant testifies that he had intended to purchase some of the land which was offered for sale, but that he made arrangements with one Pumphrey and others, who purchased nearly all the tracts sold, that, in consideration of ten dollars paid to him, he would not bid at the sale, and that he carried out the agreement, and made no purchase the day the land in question was sold. It is shown, however, that the method of registering the sales made was to group together, as a matter of convenience, those made to each purchaser, and that the register did not show the order in which the various tracts were sold. The testimony of the defendant as to the agreement by which he was to refrain from bidding is positively denied by Pumphrey. It is shown that it was difficult to find bidders for all of the land offered, and considerable effort was made to sell the entire list; that only about three-fourths of the tracts offered were sold in October; that the sale was continued until December, when the defendant purchased seven forty-acre tracts, and that other sales were made in February and March of the next year. The burden is on the defendant to show the alleged combination. His testimony, especially when considered in connection with his interest in the case, is of a character to challenge scrutiny. It is the only direct evidence of a combination which is shown by the record, and is wholly insufficient to overcome the testimony of Pumphrey, and the presumptions authorized by law that the sale was valid. We conclude that the defendant has failed to show any invalidity in the tax title of Greve.
II. To show title in himself, the plaintiff offered in evidence two instruments in writing, which purported to be special warranty deeds executed by Greve and his wife to the plaintiff, and conveying the land in question. The certificates of acknowledgment showed that the husband acknowledged the execution of the deeds in Minnesota in May 1878, but failed to show that their execution was voluntary on his part, as required by the law of this state. The plaintiff attempted to cure that defect by showing that the acknowledgments were authorized by the law of Minnesota, and therefore were made valid in this state by chapter 203 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial