Morrison v. Seybold

Decision Date21 December 1883
Docket Number9153
PartiesMorrison v. Seybold et al
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Clay Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

G. A Knight, C. H. Knight and J. T. Lecklider, for appellant.

W. W Carter and S.D. Coffey, for appellees.

OPINION

Niblack J.

Action by Dempsey Seybold, as the administrator, and a considerable number of other persons, as the children and heirs at law of Stewart Webster, deceased, against William H. Morrison, to set aside the sale for taxes of a tract of land in Clay county, and to have the amount of taxes which were lawfully chargeable against such land ascertained and adjusted. Issue and trial by the court.

The court, at the request of the defendant, made a special finding of the facts, which may be stated as follows:

First. That the land described in the complaint was, on the 12th day of April, 1873, owned by the above named Stewart Webster.

Second. That on that day the said Stewart Webster and his wife conveyed the land in controversy to John S. Hart and Elizabeth Hart, who were then, and have ever since continued to be, husband and wife.

Third. That at the time Webster and wife conveyed the land to Hart and wife, as above stated, Hart and wife executed a mortgage to Webster on the land to secure the payment of the sum of $ 5,800, being a part of the purchase-money on which time was given for payment.

Fourth. That Stewart Webster died intestate on the 18th day of November, 1873; that the plaintiff Seybold was soon thereafter appointed administrator of his estate, and still continues to be such administrator, and that the remaining plaintiffs are the heirs at law of the said Webster.

Fifth. That Seybold, as such administrator, by proper proceedings in the Clay Circuit Court, obtained a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage executed by Hart and wife to Webster on the 7th day of November, 1877, and afterwards purchased the mortgaged land at a sheriff's sale under that decree, and, on the 29th day of January, 1879, received a sheriff's deed conveying the land to him in trust for the heirs at law of the said Webster.

Sixth. That the land was taxed to John S. Hart and Elizabeth Hart for the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1878, and that during those years they became and were delinquent in the payment of the taxes assessed against them.

Seventh. That in 1874 John S. Hart was the owner of personal property of the assessed value of $ 875, the taxes upon which were charged to and taxed against the land, upon the tax-duplicate of Clay county for that year; that in 1875 the said John S. Hart was the owner of personal property assessed at $ 873, and of one dog in addition, and was liable to pay a poll-tax, upon all of which the taxes were for that year, as in the year preceding, charged against the land; that in 1876 the said John S. Hart owned personal property of the estimated value of $ 1,584, the taxes upon which were charged against the land as during the two preceding years; that in 1877 the said John S. Hart owned personal property of the listed value of $ 450, upon which taxes were likewise charged against the land on the tax-duplicate of Clay county for that year.

Eighth. That the treasurer of Clay county, on the 10th day of November, 1879, sold the land to the defendant William H. Morrison, at private sale, for $ 217.28, that sum including, and being the full amount of, the taxes charged against the land on account of the personal property, dog and poll-tax of the said John S. Hart, as herein above stated, with the penalty and interest due thereon, as well as the taxes, penalty and interest which had accrued against the land alone, and issued to the said Morrison a certificate of the sale of the land to him.

Ninth. That Elizabeth Hart had no interest in the personal property, the taxes upon which were charged against the land.

Tenth. That the sum of $ 69.37 was the amount due on the personal property, dog and poll-tax of the said John S. Hart at the time of the tax sale, on the 10th day of November, 1879, and that only the sum of $ 147.91 was due for taxes which had accrued against the land up to that time.

Eleventh. That before the land was sold for taxes Seybold, as the administrator of Webster, offered and tendered to the treasurer of Clay county, the amount of taxes, including penalty and interest, which had accumulated against the land alone, but said treasurer refused to accept that amount of taxes, unless he, the said Seybold, would also pay the taxes which had been assessed upon the personal property, including the dog belonging to, and the poll-tax charged against, the said John S. Hart.

Upon the facts thus found the court came to the following conclusions:

First. That the land mentioned in the complaint was held by Hart and wife as tenants by entirety during the time in which the delinquent taxes for which it was sold accrued.

Second. That said land was not, when sold to the defendant, liable for the personal property tax, dog-tax and poll-tax assessed against John S. Hart.

Third. That the sale of the land for these last named taxes was illegal. To which conclusions, as conclusions of law, the defendant, at the time they were announced, excepted.

The court thereupon ordered, adjudged and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Dyer v. Eldridge
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1894
    ...supra; Hulett v. Inlow, 57 Ind. 412. Such lands are not subject to a lien for taxes accruing upon other property of the owners. Morrison v. Seybold, 92 Ind. 298. A mortgage executed by both to secure the mortgage debt of one is invalid as to both. Crooks v. Kennett, 111 Ind. 347, 12 N. E. 7......
  • Dyer v. Eldridge
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1894
    ... ... Inlow, 57 Ind. 412 ...          Nor are ... they subject to a lien for taxes accruing upon other property ... of the owners. Morrison v. Seybold, 92 Ind ...          A ... mortgage executed by both to secure the mortgage debt of one ... is invalid as to both. Crooks v ... ...
  • Thornburg v. Wiggins
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1893
    ...weight of authority is in its favor. Our decisions hold that neither, alone, can alienate such estate. Jones v. Chandler, supra; Morrison v. Seybold, supra. can be no partition. Chandler v. Cheney, supra. A mortgage executed by the husband alone is void. Jones v. Chandler, supra. And the sa......
  • Simons v. Bollinger
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1900
    ...v. Rankin, 68 Ind. 245;Phelps v. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 391, 17 N. E. 602, and 19 N. E. 156;Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 222;Morrison v. Seybold, 92 Ind. 298. In Hadlock v. Gray, 104 Ind., at page 598, 4 N. E. 168, it was said by Elliott, J.: “It is true that where real property is conveyed to hu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT