McKnight v. Frey

• Decision Date: 22 November 1938
• Docket Number: 27651.
• Citation: McKnight v. Frey, 184 Okla. 303, 86 P.2d 985, 1938 OK 592 (Okla. 1938)
• Parties: McKNIGHT v. FREY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

86 P.2d 985

184 Okla. 303, 1938 OK 592

McKNIGHT v. FREY.

No. 27651.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 22, 1938

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A resale tax deed otherwise sufficient is not void on its face merely because it fails to expressly recite that the land was legally liable for taxation. Reeves v. Caldwell, 179 Okl. 501, 66 P.2d 75; Patteson v. Myers, Okl.Sup., 83 P.2d 846, decided Nov. 1, 1938.

2. A resale tax deed reciting the time and place of such resale and otherwise valid is not void on its face for failure to recite the exact place of the original tax sale. Reeves v. Caldwell, 179 Okl. 501, 66 P.2d 75; Patteson v Myers, supra.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

Action to quiet title by R. F. McKnight against E. W. Frey. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions.

GIBSON and HURST, JJ., dissenting.

Abernathy & Howell, of Shawnee, for plaintiff in error.

Chas H. Garnett, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

WELCH Justice.

The trial court held that the resale tax deeds relied upon by plaintiff McKnight were void and rendered judgment for defendant Frey. The decisive question here is whether said deeds are void or valid, and the question occurs on the forms and contents of the deeds themselves.

The decision below appears to have been based on certain language used in Felt v. Schaub, 134 Okl. 193, 272 P. 830 and in Kirsch v. Tracy, 174 Okl. 489, 55 P.2d 428. However, on thorough consideration of those specific points, this court became convinced that such language and the rules thereby stated inferred in those two former decisions were wholly incorrect as applied to resale tax deeds, and accordingly to that extent, we expressly overruled them in Reeves v. Caldwell, 179 Okl. 501, 66 P.2d 75, for the reasons therein stated.

Again considering a resale tax deed in Patteson v. Myers, 83 P.2d 846, decided November 1st, 1938, and upon further thorough consideration, we adhered to the rules of Reeves v. Caldwell, supra.

It seems clear from the issues presented below and from the briefs of the parties here, that the resale tax deeds involved in this case must be held valid following the conclusion reached in Hatchett v. Going, 121 Okl. 25, 246 P. 1100; McGrath v. Rorem, 123 Okl. 163, 252 P. 418; Reeves v. Caldwell, supra, and Patteson v. Myers, supra. It appears that the plaintiff in the instant case presents a deed executed by the same county treasurer, in the same form, and based upon the same tax resale, as were the resale tax deeds involved and upheld in McGrath v. Rorem, and Reeves v. Caldwell, supra.

Having so recently and so thoroughly considered these points in the above cited cases, we deem it unnecessary to indulge in further discussion here.

Upon the authority of McGrath v. Rorem, Hatchett v. Going, Reeves v. Caldwell, and ...