Moran v. Thomas
Decision Date | 06 July 1905 |
Citation | 104 N.W. 212,19 S.D. 469 |
Parties | JOHN B. MORAN, Plaintiff and respondent, v. W. R. THOMAS et al., Defendants and appellants. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
W. R. THOMAS et al., Defendants and appellants. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County, SD Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge Affirmed D. C. Thomas, W. R. Thomas Attorneys for appellants. H. H. Potter, I. O. Curtiss Attorneys for respondent. Opinion filed July 6, 1905
This is an action to determine adverse claims to certain real property. The appeal is from an order denying defendant’s application for a new trial. The plaintiff owns the property in controversy unless it was transferred to the defendants by certain tax deeds, recorded more than three years prior to the commencement of this suit. The learned circuit court found that the only attempted description of the property in the assessor’s book or list was as follows: “S. 2, N.E. 4, and S. E. 4, N.W. 4 Sec. 29, township 118, range 54,” and concluded that each of the tax deeds was void because neither was based on a valid assessment. The description is clearly defective under the former decisions of this court. Turner v. Hand County,(1898); Stokes v. Allen,(1902). This is practically conceded by the defendants, but they contend that the plaintiff is precluded from showing the defect because their deeds were recorded more than three years before this action was commenced. In the absence of any statement as to when the action was begun, it will be assumed that the following provisions of the statute were then in force:
Rev. Pol. Code. § 2214. Special statutes, such as this, fixing a shorter pored of limitations than that controlling other cases for attacking tax proceedings have been enacted in many stales. 27 Am. & Eng. Ency. 985.
Id. 987. It requires no argument to show that the mere recording of an instrument in the form prescribed for tax deeds would not of itself cause the running of the statute. No one would contend that a forged deed would have that effect. A line must therefore be drawn between those cases which fall within and those which fall without the special limitation. The statute by its terms applies only where land “has been sold and conveyed by deed for nonpayment of taxes.” Land cannot be sold for nonpayment of taxes which do not exist. Without an assessment there can be no tax.
Cooley on Tax, (lst Ed.) 259.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial