Mahurin v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 05 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 37845.,37845. |
| Citation | 161 S.W.2d 423 |
| Parties | MAHURIN et al. v. TUCKER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dent County; W. E. Barton, Judge.
Suit by Lula Hanning Mahurin and another against T. Herschel Tucker to set aside a tax deed. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
E. W. Bennett, of Salem, for appellants.
G. L. Gamblin, of Salem, for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
Plaintiffs, offering to do equity, instituted this suit to set aside a tax deed to forty acres of land situate in Dent county, Missouri, on the ground, among others, that the consideration therefor was grossly inadequate. The land, valued by plaintiffs at $700 and by defendant at $400, was sold under the Jones-Munger tax law. (Laws 1933, p. 425 et seq., now constituting part of Ch. 74, Art. 9, Sec. 11108 et seq., R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11108 et seq.) on November 1, 1937, for a consideration of $2.50. Defendant purchased the tax sale certificate from the successful bidder and received and recorded the Collector's deed on November 7, 1939. The land had been previously offered for sale at tax sales held in 1935 and 1936. This being the third successive annual offering, it was sold for the $2.50 bid. Sec. 11130, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11130. After receiving his deed from the Collector, defendant instituted an action to put plaintiffs' tenant off of the land and plaintiffs then first had actual knowledge of the sale. Defendant's position is, since plaintiffs failed to show themselves entitled to relief within the provisions of Sec. 11162, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11162, and failed to redeem the land under Sec. 11145, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11145, that the Collector's deed, under Sec. 11149, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11149, vested defendant with the fee simple title and plaintiffs are not entitled to relief.
Court en banc has had occasion recently to consider the issues presented. It would be a work of supererogation to attempt to elaborate thereon. The Jones-Munger law contemplates a sale for a consideration sufficient to pay the delinquent taxes, interest, and charges, Secs. 11127, 11129, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. §§ 11127, 11129, but if no bid sufficient therefor be received at either of the first two successive annual offerings, then at the third successive annual offering a sale to the highest bidder is authorized, Sec. 11130, R.S.1939. Bussen Realty Co. v. Benson, Banc, 349 Mo. ___, 159 S.W.2d 813, 817[5], held that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strohm v. Boden
... ... v. Benson, 159 S.W.2d 813; ... Moore v. Brigman, 198 S.W.2d 857; Daniel v ... Mollett, (Mo. Sup.) 188 S.W.2d 54; Mahurin v ... Tucker, (Mo. Sup.) 161 S.W.2d 423; Swain v. Boeving, ... (Mo. Sup.) 175 S.W.2d 591. (5) The certificate of ... purchase at a tax sale ... ...
-
Wetmore v. Berger
... ... under the Jones-Munger law. Johnson v. McAboy et ... al., 350 Mo. 1086, 169 S.W.2d 932; Mahurin et al. v ... Tucker (Mo. Sup.), 161 S.W.2d 423; J.C. Nichols Inv ... Co. v. Roorbach et al. (Mo. Sup.), 162 S.W.2d 274; ... Kennen et al. v ... ...
-
Johnson v. McAboy
... ... redemption. That case has been followed and the same result ... reached in Mahurin v. Tucker (Mo. Sup.), 161 S.W.2d ... 423 (where lands valued by plaintiffs at $ 700 and by ... defendant at $ 400 were sold for $ 2.50); in J. C ... ...
-
Rudd v. Scott
...Hobson v. Elmer, 163 S.W.2d 1029; Kennen v. McFarling, 165 S.W.2d 681; Bussen Realty Co. v. Benson, 349 Mo. 58, 159 S.W.2d 813; Mahurin v. Tucker, 161 S.W.2d 423; J. C. Inv. Co. v. Roorbach, 162 S.W.2d 274; Kelso v. Hubble, 163 S.W. 2d) 926; Campbell v. Daub, 349 Mo. 153, 159 S.W.2d 683; Bl......