Lanning v. Brown

• Decision Date: 12 December 1908
• Docket Number: 15,698
• Citation: Lanning v. Brown, 79 Kan. 103, 98 P. 771 (Kan. 1908)
• Parties: ALICE T. LANNING v. ADEN F. BROWN
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

98 P. 771

79 Kan. 103

ALICE T. LANNING v. ADEN F. BROWN

No. 15,698

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 12, 1908

Decided July, 1908.

Error from Thomas district court; CHARLES W. SMITH, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

TAX DEEDS -- Taxes Not a Lien on the Land Included. A compromise tax deed which shows on its face that it is based on a tax-sale certificate assigned by the order of the board of county commissioners requiring the payment of taxes which were not at the time a lien upon the land is void on its face, notwithstanding it has been of record more than five years.

Fred Robertson, and H. McCaslin, for plaintiff in error.

F. D Turck, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

This is an action in ejectment. Defendant relied upon a tax deed which had been recorded more than five years. The court held the tax deed valid, and gave judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.

The deed is dated April 19, 1901, is a compromise tax deed, and contains a recital that it was executed under the authority of a resolution of the board of county commissioners adopted August 2, 1900, directing the county treasurer to execute, and the county clerk to assign, a tax certificate for the land in controversy "to C. F. Ayers, of Thomas county, Kansas, at and for the sum of forty-six and 41-100 dollars, for the taxes of the years 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, and for the taxes for the year 1900 the sum of two and 66-100 dollars, being the taxes in full for the last-named year; which said sums, to wit, forty-nine and 7-100 dollars, were then and there, on the 28th day of September, A. D. 1900, paid to said treasurer by said C. F. Ayers; and thereupon, on the 28th day of September, A. D. 1900, said treasurer executed a tax-sale certificate for said land, and said county clerk duly assigned," etc.

The portions of the deed which we have italicized present the only objection to its validity which we deem of sufficient importance to require comment. The objection is that the deed shows on its face that the taxes for the year 1900, which were not a lien upon the land, were included and formed a part of the consideration for the assignment of the certificate and the execution of the deed. No other or different construction can be given to the plain language of the recital. Indeed, no other is contended for, but it is suggested that inasmuch as the board required...