McGuire v. Bond, 5043
| Decision Date | 23 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 5043,5043 |
| Parties | L. L. McGUIRE, Appellant, v. George BOND et al., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
L. L. McGuire, Dallas, for appellant.
Turpin, Kerr & Smith, Midland, for appellee.
Appellant, a purchaser at a tax sale of certain described lands in Reeves County, as plaintiff, brought this suit against appellees as defendants to remove cloud cast on his title by reason of appellees' attempt to redeem the property from such sale. Trial to the court without a jury resulted in a 'take nothing' judgment against plaintiff. A further statement taken from appellant's brief will be helpful to an understanding of the points involved:
'Suit by McGuire, plaintiff and appellant, purchaser at Sheriff's sale of 390 acres of land sold under judgment foreclosing tax liens; against George Bond, tax attorney, Ruby White, Bond's employee; M. P. Goes, real estate agent employed by one of the defendants in tax suit filed and judgment taken by Bond foreclosing the tax lien on the 390 acres of land.
The court filed elaborate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those deemed material to a disposition of this appeal will be hereafter referred to.
The first and second points are that the court erred in not holding that any right of redemption or title in the lands that Bond and White might have acquired by virtue of the deeds to them from M. W. McFarlin inured to the tax purchaser, McGuire, and not adjudging void and cancelling the deeds and right of redemption that Bond and White acquired from M. W. McFarlin because Bond and White were attorney and employee under a tax collection contract with the State of Texas and Reeves County, and conducted the tax foreclosure and sale that resulted in the McGuire purchase. The theory on which appellant relies is that it is against public policy for an attorney having a contract to collect delinquent taxes for the state and county, or his employee, to purchase the right of redemption from the owner of the property on which the attorney had foreclosed a tax lien for the state and county by suit resulting in a judgment and sale of the property, and to redeem such property from the purchaser at the tax sale. We are unable to see how any question of public policy is involved. It may be conceded that such attorney would be disqualified from purchasing such property at the tax sale. As representing the taxing unit his interest should be that the property bring the best price obtainable at the tax sale, whereas as a purchaser his interest would be to get the property for the lowest price obtainable. These conflicting interests would certainly disqualify the attorney from bidding at the tax sale. See Gibbs v. Scales, 54 Tex.Civ.App. 96, 118 S.W. 188, writ denied, and cases there cited. However, when the property has been sold at the tax sale we cannot see how the tax attorney and a fortiori his employee, in purchasing the equity of redemption, is acting in any way antagonistic to the taxing unit. It would have to be assumed that he had induced the purchaser at the tax sale to bid less than he otherwise would have bid so that the property might be redeemed for less. Such assumption is unwarranted. Even if it could be indulged in it would apply to any purchaser of the equity of redemption as well as to the attorney or his employee. The mere fact that the attorney and his employee through his employment learned that the property had been sold at a tax sale and who owned the equity of redemption, should not disqualify them from redeeming it. There is no fiduciary relationship between the attorney and the purchaser at the tax sale. The attorney owes such purchaser no duty. It is our conclusion there is no public policy which would render void or voidable the purchase of the equity of redemption by Miss White after the tax sale, or the exercise of the right to redeem by her.
The court found that under the conveyances to her of the equity of redemption the defendant Ruby White deposited with the Tax Collector of Reeves County, Texas, her personal checks in the aggregate amount exceeding the amount required to redeem the lands involved in this suit from the tax sale made to plaintiff; that at all times Ruby White had on deposit in the bank on which such checks were drawn adequate and more than sufficient funds to provide payment to the Tax Collector of Reeves County, Texas, of the amount of such checks; that such checks were afterwards presented to the bank on which they were drawn and paid on presentation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Rodriguez
...and cases cited therein. Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1969, no writ); McGuire v. Bond, 271 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Perry v. Venable, 112 S.W.2d 1069 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1938, writ dism'd); Atkinson v. Shelton, 160 S.W.......
-
Kelly v. D Realty Invs., Inc. (In re Kelly), Case No. 16–33627–hdh13
..., 923 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex. App. 1996) ; Jackson v. Maddox, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 478, 117 S.W. 185 (1909) ; McGuire v. Bond, 271 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. Civ. App.–El Paso 1954)writ refused NRE (Feb. 22, 1955).In sum, the Court finds that the declaratory judgment action was the appropriate method t......
-
Leach v. Conner, No. 13-01-468-CV (Tex. App. 12/4/2003)
...1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We also note that we must liberally construe the redemption statutes. McGuire v. Bond, 271 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). All that is required is substantial compliance with section 34.21`s requirements. Macha v. Carameros, 674 S.......
-
Serion v. Thornton
...243 Miss. 627, 139 So.2d 629, 631 (1962); Belmore v. State Tax Comm'n, 56 N.M. 436, 245 P.2d 149, 153-54 (1952); McGuire v. Bond, 271 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex.Civ.App. 1954). On the other hand, David and Henry, as spouses of Edwina and Alice, respectively, do not appear to be "owners" of the Pr......