Loose v. Navarre

• Decision Date: 01 June 1893
• Citation: 95 Mich. 603,55 N.W. 435
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LOOSE v. NAVARRE.

55 N.W. 435

95 Mich. 603

LOOSE v. NAVARRE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 1, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county, in chancery; Edward D Kinne, Judge.

Action by Cyrus W. Loose against Sylvester P. Navarre to quiet title to certain land. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gouv. Morris, for appellant.

Landon & Lockwood, for appellee.

LONG J.

The bill in this case was filed to remove certain clouds from the title of complainant's land. One is a deed from the auditor general to the defendant for the tax of the year 1885, and the other is a deed from the treasurer of Monroe county to the defendant for a delinquent drain tax for the year 1885. The case was heard on pleadings and proofs taken in open court, and a decree made setting aside the two deeds. Defendant appeals.

It appears that in the year 1885 there was assessed in the township of Monroe, where the land lies, the sum of $450, for township contingent purposes, and the portion of such amount assessed upon this land was $9.37. No amount was voted or authorized to be raised in the township for this purpose either at the annual township meeting, or by the township board. As to the drain tax it appears that there was no record of the laying out of any drain in the township of Monroe upon which this land was assessed, and the tax roll does not show for what the drain tax is assessed; and it further appears that the sale of the land was made for this tax by the county treasurer, and the deed given by him, and not by the auditor general. It is not very seriously contended by defendant's counsel that either of these tax sales are valid, but he contends that the court below was in error in setting the sales aside, for the reason that complainant, by his proofs, did not show title in himself to the land in controversy. It appears that the lands originally belonged to the father of complainant, who was in business with his father under the firm name of Charles Loose & Sons. The firm becoming indebted, Charles Loose, the father, conveyed the lands in controversy to Ira Grovesnor in trust for creditors of Charles Loose & Sons. Subsequently Grovesnor conveyed them to the complainant. The defendant sought, upon the hearing, to show that no settlement was ever made with the creditors, and therefore the deed from Grovesnor to the complainant conveyed no title. The defendant is not in a position, claiming under a void tax...