McDowall v. Herbert

• Decision Date: 23 April 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

153 N.W. 464

31 N.D. 217

JAMES MCDOWALL, John McDowall, William McDowall, Janet Farley, Barbara Jane McDowall, Elizabeth Radcliffe, Mary McLean, Peter Cameron, and David T. McDowall v. JOHN HERBERT, Edward I. Donovan, Mary Donovan, Isaac Ullyot, and Ambrose Ullyot

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 23, 1915

Rehearing denied July 1, 1915.

Affirmed.

Engerud Holt, & Frame and W. A. McIntyre, for plaintiffs and appellants, and for defendant and appellant, John Herbert.

The deeds from Herbert and from the McDowalls to Champine are void, but actions can be brought and maintained in the names of the grantors for the benefit of Mr. Champine. Galbraith v. Payne, 12 N.D. 164, 96 N.W. 258.

Courts will presume that the common law prevails in a sister state and such is our statute. Rev. Codes 1905, § 7317 subdiv. 41, Comp. Laws 1913, § 7936; Leonard v. Fleming, 13 N.D. 629, 102 N.W. 308.

In theory of the law, change in the name of a corporation has no effect on the identity of the corporation. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 687; Welfley v. Shenandoah Iron, Lumber Min. & Mfg. Co. 83 Va. 768, 3 S.E. 376.

A change in the name of a corporation does not change its identity, or affect its title to property. Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1, 19 L. ed. 53.

A change of corporate name does not exonerate it from liability previously created, if it is substantially the same. Northwestern College v. Schwagler, 37 Iowa 577; Wilhite v. Convent of Good Shepherd, 117 Ky. 251, 78 S.W. 138; South Carolina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Price, 67 S.C. 207, 45 S.E. 173; Peever Mercantile Co. v. State Mut. F. Asso. 23 S.D. 1, 119 N.W. 1008, 19 Ann. Cas. 1236.

Such change does not amount to the creation of a new corporation. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 686, 687; 1 Thomp. Corp. § 289; McCloskey v. Doherty, 97 Ky. 300, 30 S.W. 649.

Whatever is notice enough to excite attention, and put the party on guard, and call for inquiry, is notice of everything to which such inquiry might have led. When a person has sufficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall be deemed conversant with it. Wetzler v. Nichols, 53 Wash. 285, 132 Am. St. Rep. 1075, 101 P. 867; Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U.S. 607, 38 L. ed. 286, 14 S.Ct. 442; Johnson v. Erlandson, 14 N.D. 521, 105 N.W. 722; Hingtgen v. Thackery, 23 S.D. 329, 121 N.W. 839; Webb v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 162 Ind. 616, 66 L.R.A. 632, 69 N.E. 1006.

The notice of the foreclosure of the mortgage was sufficient to apprise any and all persons interested, not only of the foreclosure of a certain specified mortgage, the names of the parties, the amount claimed to be due, the time and place of sale, and full description of the premises, but of the identity of the corporation. Iowa Invest. Co. v. Shepard, 8 S.D. 332, 66 N.W. 451; Fisher v. Betts, 12 N.D. 197, 96 N.W. 132.

The laws of 1895 were wholly prospective, and did not affect the issuance of deeds under the 1890 revenue law; and the county auditor was the proper and necessary officer to execute deeds under tax sales made under the 1890 law. Fisher v. Betts, supra.

The deed here in question is void, for the further reason that it does not conform to the form or deed provided by the laws of 1891, and is of no force. Beggs v. Paine, 15 N.D. 438, 109 N.W. 322.

The recitals in such deeds must conform to the requirements of the law. Batelle v. Knight, 23 S.D. 161, 120 N.W. 1102, 20 Ann. Cas. 456; King v. Lane, 21 S.D. 101, 110 N.W. 37; Battelle v. Wolven, 22 S.D. 39, 115 N.W. 99; Youker v. Hobart, 17 N.D. 299, 115 N.W. 839.

A deed void on its face does not set in motion the statute of limitations. Beggs v. Paine, 15 N.D. 436, 109 N.W. 322; Sweigle v. Gates, 9 N.D. 538, 84 N.W. 481; Hegar v. DeGroat, 3 N.D. 354, 56 N.W. 150; Roberts v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N.D. 504, 79 N.W. 1049; State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N.D. 374, 109 N.W. 357.

In order to constitute a valid tax sale, there must be a valid assessment forming the basis of the tax, and it must be verified by the assessor. Eaton v. Bennett, 10 N.D. 346, 87 N.W. 188; Lee v. Crawford, 10 N.D. 482, 88 N.W. 97; Sheets v. Paine, 10 N.D. 103, 86 N.W. 117; Grand Forks County v. Frederick, 16 N.D. 118, 125 Am. St. Rep. 621, 112 N.W. 839.

All the essential steps in levying a tax must appear by some record, and this means a record kept by some county official. O'Neil v. Tyler, 3 N.D. 55, 53 N.W. 434; Power v. Larabee, 2 N.D. 141, 49 N.W. 724.

The making of an itemized statement of estimated expenditures is an essential element in the levying of a tax. Engstad v. Dinnie, 8 N.D. 8, 76 N.W. 292; Shuttuck v. Smith, 6 N.D. 56, 69 N.W. 5.

No notice of the time of redemption from the sale was ever given, published, or served by any county official, and therefore no officer had authority to execute or deliver a tax deed upon such sale. Blakemore v. Cooper, 15 N.D. 5, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1074, 125 Am. St. Rep. 574, 106 N.W. 566; O'Neil v. Tyler, 3 N.D. 55, 53 N.W. 434; Power v. Larabee, supra.

The sale was contrary to the provisions of the law in force at the time, and is therefore void. Batelle v. Knight, 23 S.D. 161, 120 N.W. 1102, 20 Ann. Cas. 456; King v. Lane, 21 S.D. 101, 110 N.W. 37; Battelle v. Wolven, 22 S.D. 39, 115 N.W. 99.

And the deed issued on such sale is void, and insufficient to set in motion the special limitation statute. Beggs v. Paine, 15 N.D. 436, 109 N.W. 322; Sweigle v. Gates, 9 N.D. 538, 84 N.W. 481; Hegar v. DeGroat, 3 N.D. 354, 56 N.W. 150; Roberts v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N.D. 504, 79 N.W. 1049; State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N.D. 374, 109 N.W. 357; Engstad v. Dinnie, 8 N.D. 8, 76 N.W. 292; Shuttuck v. Smith, 6 N.D. 56, 69 N.W. 5.

The notice of the expiration of the time to redeem from a tax sale must set forth the true amount necessary to redeem. Reed v. Lyon, 96 Cal. 501, 31 P. 619; State ex rel. National F. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 92 Minn. 210, 99 N.W. 799; Midland Co. v. Eby, 89 Minn. 27, 93 N.W. 707.

So, also, must the time be correctly stated in such notice. State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N.D. 383, 109 N.W. 357; Kipp v. Nord, 73 Minn. 1, 72 Am. St. Rep. 590, 75 N.W. 760; State ex rel. Kipp v. Robinson, 75 Minn. 1, 77 N.W. 414; Clary v. O'Shea, 72 Minn. 105, 71 Am. St. Rep. 465, 75 N.W. 115.

The laws are mandatory in all their requirements. State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N.D. 374, 109 N.W. 357; Blakemore v. Cooper, 15 N.D. 5, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1074, 125 Am. St. Rep. 574, 106 N.W. 566; Clary v. O'Shea, 72 Minn. 105, 71 Am. St. Rep. 465, 75 N.W. 115; Walker v. Martin, 87 Minn. 489, 92 N.W. 336; Gahre v. Berry, 82 Minn. 200, 84 N.W. 733; Kipp v. Johnson, 73 Minn. 34, 75 N.W. 736.

Such defects as are here stated are jurisdictional. Roberts v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N.D. 504, 79 N.W. 1049; Miller v. Miller, 96 Cal. 376, 31 Am. St. Rep. 229, 31 P. 247; Eaton v. Bennett, 10 N.D. 346, 87 N.W. 188; Lee v. Crawford, 10 N.D. 482, 88 N.W. 97; Grand Forks County v. Frederick, 16 N.D. 118, 125 Am. St. Rep. 621, 112 N.W. 839.

The law in force at the time of a tax sale, and at the time of the issuance of a deed thereon, becomes a part of the contract between the state and the purchaser, and also the owner of the equity of redemption. Cole v. Lamb, 81 Minn. 463, 84 N.W. 329; Kenaston v. Great Northern R. Co. 59 Minn. 35, 60 N.W. 813; State ex rel. Kipp v. Nord, 73 Minn. 1, 72 Am. St. Rep. 594, 75 N.W. 760; Kipp v. Johnson, 73 Minn. 34, 75 N.W. 736; Roberts v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N.D. 504, 79 N.W. 1049; Blakemore v. Cooper, 15 N.D. 17, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1074, 125 Am. St. Rep. 574, 106 N.W. 566; Fisher v. Betts, 12 N.D. 198, 96 N.W. 132; State ex rel. Davenport v. McDonald, 26 Minn. 145, 1 N.W. 832; Fleming v. Roverud, 30 Minn. 273, 15 N.W. 119; State ex rel. Wheeler v. Foley, 30 Minn. 350, 15 N.W. 375; Cooley, Taxn. 350; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 22 N.W. 614; Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn. 479, 21 N.W. 721; Johnson v. Taylor, 150 Cal. 201, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 818, 119 Am. St. Rep. 181, 88 P. 903.

A statement, in a tax deed, that the land was offered for sale "in accordance with law," is a mere conclusion, and can impart no validity to the deed. Rush v. Lewis & C. County, 37 Mont. 240, 95 P. 836; 37 Cyc. 1436; Duncan v. Gillette, 37 Kan. 156, 14 P. 479.

A failure to state the place of sale, in a notice, renders the deed void. Ludden v. Hansen, 17 Neb. 354, 22 N.W. 766; McGrath v. Wallace, 116 Cal. 548, 48 P. 719; 37 Cyc. 1436; Rush v. Lewis & C. County, 37 Mont. 240, 95 P. 836.

The county auditor's deed was issued under a sale made under a different statute or revenue law, and renders the deed void on its face. Youker v. Hobart, 17 N.D. 299, 115 N.W. 839; King v. Lane, 21 S.D. 101, 110 N.W. 37.

It is necessary that a tax deed show on its face that all the requirements of the law have been met, or the deed is void. Batelle v. Knight, 23 S.D. 161, 120 N.W. 1102, 20 Ann. Cas. 456; King v. Lane, supra; Battelle v. Wolven, 22 S.D. 39, 115 N.W. 99; Grimm v. O'Connell, 54 Cal. 522; 37 Cyc. 1434; Cogel v. Raph, 24 Minn. 198; Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 259, 6 N.W. 781; Madland v. Benland, 24 Minn. 376; Duncan v. Gillette, 37 Kan. 156, 14 P. 479; Bonham v. Weymouth, 39 Minn. 92, 38 N.W. 805; Beggs v. Paine, 15 N.D. 439, 109 N.W. 322; Sweigle v. Gates, 9 N.D. 538, 84 N.W. 481; Hegar v. DeGroat, 3 N.D. 354, 56 N.W. 150; Roberts v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N.D. 504, 79 N.W. 1049; State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N.D. 374, 109 N.W. 357.

The right to a deed of specific form is a contractual one, and cannot be taken away by the legislature, and no subsequent act of the legislature can change the effect of it as evidence. Fisher v. Betts, 12 N.D. 197, 96 N.W. 132.

Any law or act in derogation of such right would be unconstitutional. Dever v. Cornwell, 10 N.D. 123, 86 N.W. 227; Sweigle v. Gates, 9 N.D. 543, 84 N.W. 481; Wells County v. McHenry, 7 N.D. 246, 74 N.W....