De Laurier v. Stilson
| Decision Date | 09 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,984 -- (84) |
| Citation | 141 N.W. 293,121 Minn. 339 |
| Parties | O. B. DE LAURIER v. EDGAR STILSON and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Todd county to determine adverse claims to certain real estate. After the death of defendant Lucy J. Stilson, the executors of her last will and testament were substituted as defendants. The case was tried before Taylor, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that Lucy J. Stilson died seized in fee of the real estate in question, subject only to the lien of plaintiff for taxes thereon for four successive years, and that the property be sold to satisfy the amount due upon this lien. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Notice of expiration of redemption.
Under Laws 1902 (Extra Session) c. 2, § 47, a notice of expiration of redemption that fails to state that the tax certificate has been presented to the county auditor by the holder thereof is invalid.
O. B De Laurier and J. D. Jones, for appellant.
James Schoonmaker and William F. Hunt, for respondent.
This action was to determine adverse claims to land in Todd county described in the complaint. Plaintiff alleged that he was the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of the lands, which were vacant and unoccupied, and that defendants claimed an estate and interest therein adverse to plaintiff, and asked judgment that plaintiff was such owner and that defendants' claims be adjudged void. Defendant Lucy J. Stilson answered, alleging ownership in herself, denying that plaintiff had any interest, and demanding judgment accordingly. On the trial plaintiff relied on a tax title. The court found that Lucy J. Stilson, who died after the trial, but before the decision, was at the time of her death the owner in fee of the land, that plaintiff's tax title was invalid, but that plaintiff was entitled to a lien on the land for the sums of money paid by the purchaser at the tax sale, and paid for subsequent taxes, with interest as provided by law. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appealed to this court.
The first contention of plaintiff is that it did not appear that Lucy J. Stilson had any record title to the land. How this, if true, helps plaintiff, we are unable to see. In an action of this kind, plaintiff must prove a title in himself. He cannot prevail on proof that the adversary has no title, if he shows no better title in himself. On the trial, plaintiff introduced in evidence his tax certificate, proof of payment of subsequent taxes, proof that the land was assessed in the name of Lucy J. Stilson, and notice of expiration of the time for redemption directed to her and served by publication. The tax judgment was also introduced. The invalidity of plaintiff's title, if it was invalid, thus appeared from his own case, and it would not validate that title, or warrant a judgment in plaintiff's favor, if it afterwards developed that the title claimed by defendants was bad. However, it sufficiently appears that the record title to at least an undivided half of the land was in defendant. Clearly the case must depend on whether plaintiff had a good tax title.
There were several objections urged, both in the trial court and here, to the validity of plaintiff's tax title. The trial court held it void, because the notice of expiration of redemption does not state that the tax certificate was presented to the auditor by the holder thereof. If this conclusion was correct, we need not consider the other claims of defendant.
As stated by the trial court in its memorandum, and as repeatedly stated in our decisions, the giving of this notice is the last step in divesting the owner of his title, and it must be given in strict compliance with the statute to be effective. Laws 1902, p. 26, c. 2, § 47, provides that every person holding a tax certificate shall, after the expiration of the time for redemption of the lands therein described, present such certificate to the county auditor who thereupon shall prepare the notice, etc. It is further provided that "the notice herein provided for shall be sufficient, if substantially in the following form." Then follows the form, among the recitals of which is: "And that the said tax certificate has been presented to me by the holder thereof." This appears to be the first law...
To continue reading
Request your trial