Murphy v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 24 April 1917 |
| Citation | 163 N.W. 820,37 N.D. 300 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Petition for rehearing denied July 14, 1917.
Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Honorable W. L Nuessle, Judge.
Affirmed.
Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellants.
All acts by a corporation, or even an affirmance by an appellate court, after the death of a corporation, and in an action to which it was a party, are void. MacRae v. Kansas City Piano Co. 69 Kan. 457, 77 P. 94; Krutz v. Paola Town Co. 20 Kan. 397, 22 Kan. 726; Eagle Chair Co. v Kelsey, 23 Kan. 631; Atchison v. Twine, 9 Kan 350; McCulloch v. Norwood, 58 N.Y. 562; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N.Y. 384; Venable Bros. v Southern Granite Co. 135 Ga. 508, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 446, 69 S.E. 822; Crossman v. Vivienda Water Co. 150 Cal. 575, 89 P. 335; Newhall v. Western Zinc Min. Co. 164 Cal. 380, 128 P. 1040; Lowe v. Superior Ct. 165 Cal. 708, 134 P. 190; Root v. Sweeney, 12 S.D. 43, 80 N.W. 149; Miami Exporting Co. v. Gano, 13 Ohio 270; United States v. Spokane Mill Co. 206 F. 999; First Nat. Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609, 22 L.Ed. 687; Marion Phosphate Co. v. Perry, 33 L.R.A. 252, 20 C. C. A. 490, 41 U. S. App. 14, 74 F. 425; Harris-Woodbury-Lumber Co. v. Coffin (C. C.) 179 F. 257; Robinson v. Mutual Reserve L. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 182 F. 850; Olds v. City Trust, S.D. & Surety Co. 185 Mass. 500, 102 Am. St. Rep. 356, 70 N.E. 1022; Merrill v. Suffolk Bank, 31 Me. 57, 50 Am. Dec. 649; Combes v. Keyes (Combes v. Milwaukee & M. R. Co.) 89 Wis. 297, 27 L.R.A. 369, 46 Am. St. Rep. 839, 62 N.W. 89; May v. State Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56, 40 Am. Dec. 726; Thornton v. Marginal Freight R. Co. 123 Mass. 32; Gulledge Bros. Lumber Co. v. Wenatchee Land Co. 115 Minn. 491, 132 N.W. 992; Sinnott v. Hanan, 156 A.D. 323, 141 N.Y.S. 505.
The question of continuing or reviving actions depends upon the law of the place where the action was brought. Union Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 169 N.Y. 538, 57 L.R.A. 513, 88 Am. St. Rep. 614, 62 N.E. 672; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N.Y. 384; Northern P. R. Co. v. Babcock, 154 U.S. 190, 38 L.Ed. 958, 14 S.Ct. 978; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U.S. 226, 43 L.Ed. 677, 19 S.Ct. 387, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 760.
The default judgments against the individual defendants were regular, valid, and are in full force as a bar. Code Civ. Proc. chap. 31; Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 8144-8165; Comp. Laws 1913, § 7483; Sargent v. Kindred, 5 N.D. 8, 63 N.W. 151; Wheeler v. Castor, 11 N.D. 347, 61 L.R.A. 746, 92 N.W. 381; Freeman v. Wood, 11 N.D. 1, 88 N.W. 721; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Holz, 10 N.D. 25, 84 N.W. 581; Fargo v. Keeney, 11 N.D. 484, 92 N.W. 836, 14 N.D. 419, 105 N.W. 92; Emmons County v. Thompson, 9 N.D. 603, 84 N.W. 385; Kirschner v. Kirschner, 7 N.D. 292, 75 N.W. 252; Gauthier v. Rustika, 3 N.D. 1, 53 N.W. 80; Cline v. Duffy, 20 N.D. 525, 129 N.W. 75; Martinson v. Marzolf, 14 N.D. 301, 103 N.W. 937; Freeman v. Wood, 14 N.D. 95, 103 N.W. 392; Olson v. Mattison, 16 N.D. 231, 112 N.W. 994; Bruegger v. Cartier, 20 N.D. 72, 126 N.W. 491; Braseth v. Bottineau County, 13 N.D. 344, 100 N.W. 1082; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Branden, 19 N.D. 489, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 858, 126 N.W. 102; Hunt v. Swenson, 15 N.D. 512, 108 N.W. 41; Olson v. Sargent County, 15 N.D. 146, 107 N.W. 43; Colean Mfg. Co. v. Feckler, 16 N.D. 227, 112 N.W. 993; Gaar, S. & Co. v. Collins, 15 N.D. 622, 110 N.W. 81; Williams v. Fairmount School Dist. 21 N.D. 198, 129 N.W. 1027; Racine-Sattley Mfg. Co. v. Pavlicek, 21 N.D. 222, 130 N.W. 228; Acme Harvester Co. v. Magill, 15 N.D. 116, 106 N.W. 563; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Doyle, 17 N.D. 386, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 606, 116 N.W. 529; Kitzman v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. 10 N.D. 26, 84 N.W. 585; Phelps v. McCollam, 10 N.D. 536, 88 N.W. 292; Naderhoff v. George Benz & Sons, 25 N.D. 165, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 853, 141 N.W. 501.
The most elementary requisites as a part of the taking of property by judicial process are notice, opportunity to answer, and a hearing. Where these are absent, there is no due process, and orders and judgments made in their absence are void for want of jurisdiction and because they are without due process. The default judgments against the defendants were and are valid. Parsons v. Russell, 11 Mich. 120, 83 Am. Dec. 728; Clapp v. Houg, 12 N.D. 600, 65 L.R.A. 757, 102 Am. St. Rep. 589, 98 N.W. 710; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 38 L.Ed. 896, 14 S.Ct. 1108; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318, 319, 25 L.Ed. 667, 669, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 524; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346, 25 L.Ed. 676, 679, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 547; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 397, 26 L.Ed. 567, 573; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 554, 23 L.Ed. 588, 592; Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244, 4 L.Ed. 559, 561; Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 233, 234, 41 L.Ed. 979, 983, 984, 17 S.Ct. 581; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 40 L.Ed. 1075, 16 S.Ct. 904; San Mateo County v. Southern P. R. Co. 8 Sawy. 238, 13 F. 751; Cooley Const. Lim. pp. 504, 505, and notes; Blake v. McCung, 172 U.S. 239, 43 L.Ed. 432, 19 S.Ct. 165; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30 L.Ed. 220, 6 S.Ct. 1064.
This action is equitable, and is to be determined on equitable principles. Defendants have the burden as against plaintiffs in possession under color of title. O'Neil v. Tyler, 3 N.D. 47, 53 N.W. 434; Reichelt v. Perry, 15 S.D. 601, 91 N.W. 459; Betts v. Signor, 7 N.D. 399, 75 N.W. 781; Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 413, 10 N.W. 424; Christian v. Bowman, 49 Minn. 99, 51 N.W. 663; Woolfolk v. Albrecht, 22 N.D. 36, 133 N.W. 310, cases cited.
The rule of comity does not apply on the facts in this case. Walker v. Rein, 14 N.D. 613, 106 N.W. 405; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U.S. 389, 44 L.Ed. 1116, 20 S.Ct. 962; Atty. Gen. v. Bay State Min. Co. 99 Mass. 148, 96 Am. Dec. 717, 14 Mor. Min. Rep. 158; People v. Formosa, 131 N.Y. 479, 27 Am. St. Rep. 612, 30 N.E. 492; Stanhilber v. Mutual Mill Ins. Co. 76 Wis. 285, 45 N.W. 221; Rose v. Kimberly & C. Co. 27 L.R.A. 556, 46 Am. St. Rep. 855, 89 Wis. 545, 62 N.W. 526; Seamans v. Temple Co. 105 Mich. 400, 28 L.R.A. 430, 55 Am. St. Rep. 457, 63 N.W. 408; Seamans v. Zimmerman, 91 Iowa 363, 59 N.W. 290; Pope v. Hanke, 155 Ill. 617, 28 L.R.A. 568, 40 N.E. 839.
Defendants, having failed to assert any claim to the land after the tax certificates and tax deeds therefor were issued, cannot assail the title in view of the three-year limitation statute. Sess. Laws 1897, § 79, chap. 126; Comp. Laws 1913, § 2194; Munroe v. Donovan, 31 N.D. 228, 153 N.W. 461.
Defendants having abandoned the land, they cannot now claim it. Cotton v. Horton, 22 N.D. 1, 132 N.W. 225; Higbee v. Daeley, 15 N.D. 339, 109 N.W. 318; Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 418, 48 N.W. 13; Johnson v. Erlandson, 14 N.D. 518, 105 N.W. 722; Shelby v. Bowden, 16 S.D. 531, 94 N.W. 416; Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290, 123 N.W. 835; Ford v. Ford, 24 S.D. 644, 124 N.W. 1108; 16 Cyc. 718; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 394; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 63 N.W. 495; Pom. Eq. Jur. 802.
The alleged corporation and the defendants who claim through it had and have no standing in courts of law or equity either in the state of Kansas or in this state. They took no legal steps toward organizing a corporation, and the proposed corporation was abandoned and forfeited. Their so-called articles failed to state any purpose for which corporations might be organized as authorized by statute, and such articles are fatally defective. 10 Cyc. 224, and cases cited.
A corporation, having no power to acquire or hold lands, has no standing in a court of equity seeking the aid of the court to enable it to do that which is in violation of law. 10 Cyc. 1135, 1274, 1293.
Under statutes like ours, authorizing the plaintiff to dismiss his action as of right and by the filing of a dismissal with the clerk, the right to dismiss is held to be absolute, and proceedings taken by the court thereafter are void. Allen v. Van, 1 Iowa 568; Burlington & M. R. Co. v. Sater, 1 Iowa 420; Ballinger v. Davis, 29 Iowa 512; St. John v. Harwick, 17 Ind. 180; Miller v. Mans, 28 Ind. 194; Gordon v. Goodell, 34 Ill. 429; Ferguson v. Ingle, 38 Ore. 43, 62 P. 760; Deere & W. Co. v. Hinckley, 20 S.D. 359, 106 N.W. 138; 14 Cyc. 416, 422, notes 9, 10; Fisk v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 53 Barb. 513, 36 How. Pr. 20, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 379; House v. Cooper, 30 Barb. 157; Richardson v. New York C. R. Co. 98 Mass. 85; Koerper v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. 40 Minn. 132, 41 N.W. 656; Minor v. Mechanics Bank, 1 Pet. 46, 7 L.Ed. 47; Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford, 13 Cal. 637; Reed v. Calderwood, 22 Cal. 464; Dimick v. Deringer, 32 Cal. 488.
Defendants do not come here with clean hands and good motives. They acquired their so-called interest in these lands knowing of the pendency of the litigation, and dealt with one not in possession. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 9405, 9406, 9414.
The defendants abandoned this land for years, and plaintiffs have assumed the burden of all the taxes and have been in possession, and defendants now want the land because of the increased value. Mahon v. Leech, 11 N.D. 181, 90 N.W. 807; Holgate v. Eaton, 116 U.S. 33, 29 L.Ed. 538, 6 S.Ct. 224; O'Fallon v. Kennerly, 45 Mo. 124; Wadge v. Kittleson, 12 N.D. 452, 97 N.W. 856; Spoonheim v. Spoonheim, 14 N.D. 389, 104 N.W. 845.
Miller, Zuger, & Tillotson and W. P. Costello, for respondents.
The defendant corporation was fully and duly qualified...
To continue reading
Request your trial