Millikan v. Werts
| Decision Date | 23 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | 1,639 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 820,14 Ind.App. 223 |
| Parties | MILLIKAN v. WERTS ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Boone Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Holstein & Barrett and C. M. Zion, for appellant.
O. P Mahan, for appellees.
The appellant was the plaintiff below. In his complaint he asked for the review of a judgment entered at the preceding term of the circuit court. The court sustained the defendants' demurrers to the complaint, and rendered final judgment for them. The only question involved in this appeal is the sufficiency of the complaint.
The material facts alleged are, that on the 25th day of February, 1881, certain lands in Boone county were duly sold for the non-payment of taxes assessed thereon; that the appellant became the purchaser and received the usual certificate of purchase; that the amount for which the lands were sold was $ 157.36; that no redemption was made, and that on the 13th day of March, 1883, the appellant received a tax deed for the lands, which was duly recorded; that subsequently to the sale, and execution of the deed, the appellant, from year to year, paid the taxes on the land and certain ditch assessments, amounting in the aggregate to about $ 1,000; that in July, 1887, the appellant brought a suit before a justice of the peace in Boone county, against the defendants, for the possession of said lands; that the appellees caused said action to be transferred to the Boone Circuit Court, because as they alleged the title to the realty was involved; that in the circuit court the cause was tried, and it was adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff was not entitled to the possession of the lands, and that the tax title deed so executed to the plaintiff was invalid, for the reason that the person against whom the taxes were assessed had personal property in Boone county, out of which the taxes for which said lands were sold could have been collected, and that the court further specifically found that no evidence was offered as to the amount of the taxes which had been paid on said real estate by the plaintiff; and it is further averred that the question of the amount of the plaintiff's lien on said land for and on account of such taxes so paid was not passed upon or adjudicated in said action, and that the only question in issue in said action was the plaintiff's right to the possession of said realty; that no issue was formed or tried as to the amount of the taxes against said lands.
In September, 1894, the appellant filed his complaint in the Boone Circuit Court to enforce a lien for the taxes and assessments paid, and for equitable relief, alleging the facts substantially as above stated. A demurrer for want of facts was sustained to this complaint, and final judgment rendered against the plaintiff. It is this judgment that the complaint in this case seeks to review. The question here presented is whether or not the claim for taxes was adjudicated in the ejectment proceedings.
In the administration of justice there is no principle more firmly settled than that whenever a matter is finally adjudicated and determined by a competent tribunal it is considered forever at rest. If it were otherwise property and personal rights would be frequently jeopardized. This exposure would be a constant and fruitful source of litigation. The peace and repose of society is measurably dependent upon this principle, and it is the policy of the law to preserve and enforce it in all proper cases. Fischli v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. 360.
This principle is easily comprehended, but its application is often attended with difficulty. It is important to know what matters were involved in the controversy, and upon which the judgment of the court operated. It is apparent that if the adjudication be permitted to extend to or include matters not properly involved, frequent hardship and injustice would result. The parties to a controversy have the right to bring the matters before the court which they wish adjudicated. This they do by their pleadings. Hence we look to the pleadings and issues to determine what matters were adjudicated. The proposition that the judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter is conclusive means nothing more than that the judgment is conclusive upon all questions which were or might have been litigated and determined within the issues before the court. Whitney v. Marshall, 138 Ind. 472, 37 N.E. 964.
It frequently happens that matters are within the issues when the judgment concerning them is silent. In such cases it may be shown by parol what was actually litigated.
At common law ejectment was a purely possessory action and the judgment was no bar even to another action for the possession. Nor did the judgment bar equitable defenses. Tyler Eject., p. 584; 592 Vanfleet Form. Adj., section 8.
An action in ejectment under the code procedure does not necessarily involve the title. If title is not involved the judgment rendered does not adjudicate the title. King v. Townshend, 141 N.Y. 358, 36 N.E. 513; Vanfleet Form. Adj., section 399. But the title may be put in question by either party and when it is each party is bound to bring forth all claims, both legal or equitable, which he has and have them adjudicated or the judgment will forever bar them. Vanfleet Form. Adj., section 183.
The title to the real estate in the ejectment proceedings before us was put in the issue although the pleadings concerning the tax deed and the claim for taxes are silent. In section 8641, Burns R. S. 1894, it is provided that in an action in ejectment or other action either in law or in equity, if a tax deed shall prove to be invalid or ineffectual to convey title, the court shall ascertain the amount due the party holding the tax deed and decree a lien on the lands therefor; and this may be done, though no such relief is asked and the pleadings are silent concerning the claim for taxes. Jones v. Foley, 121 Ind. 180, 22 N.E. 987.
It is expressly averred in the complaint that the claim for taxes was not adjudicated. But this averment cannot control if as a matter of law the taxes and the lien therefor were necessarily involved in the judgment rendered in the ejectment proceedings. Under the statute and decisions in this State, we are of the opinion that the claim for taxes was involved in the ejectment proceedings.
The judgment further expressly decreed that the tax title deed was invalid and that no evidence was offered as to the amount of taxes paid.
It is difficult to understand how the court could have reached the conclusion that no evidence was offered as to the amount of taxes. The deed itself was evidence of some amount. The court could not have decreed the deed invalid unless it was in evidence.
The parties to an action have the right to reserve any particular matter from the force of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial