Newsom v. Jacobs
| Decision Date | 04 December 1911 |
| Citation | 51 Colo. 579,119 P. 623 |
| Parties | NEWSOM v. JACOBS. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Washington County; E. E. Armour, Judge.
Action by Agnes D. Newsom against Wilhelm Jacobs. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded with leave to amend.
John F. Mail, for plaintiff in error.
August Muntzing and Egbert More, for defendant in error.
This is an action in ejectment. The plaintiff alleged ownership etc., of lot 12, in block 6, original town of Akron Washington county, Colo. The defendant, by answer, first denied such ownership; second, alleged he was the owner of the lot and in possession; third, alleged he was the owner by virtue of a tax deed issued and recorded over five years prior to the bringing of the action. Judgment was for the defendant, holding the tax deed good. The plaintiff brings the case here for review upon error.
The evidence discloses that the lot in controversy was 25 feet wide and 140 feet deep. The plaintiff deraigned title to about four-fifths of this lot (subject to any title transferred by the tax deed); she makes no attempt to establish her title to the remainder of it. The defendant being in possession of the entire lot, this was prima facie evidence of his right to possession, as against the plaintiff, to that portion of the lot to which she failed to establish her title. Moon v. Rollins, 36 Cal. 333, 95 Am.Dec. 181.
The defendant, over objections, offered in evidence a tax deed for this lot; the portion material to this controversy reads as follows: '* * * Whereas, the treasurer of said county did, on the twenty-first day of October, A. D. 1895, by virtue of the authority vested in him by law, at (an adjourned sale) the sale begun and publicly held on the twenty-first day of October, A. D. 1895, expose to public sale at the office of the treasurer in the county aforesaid in substantial conformity with the requirements of the statute in such case made and provided, the real property above described, for the payment of taxes, interest and costs then due, and remaining unpaid on said property; and whereas, at the time and place aforesaid, W. S. Stratton, Co. Treas. (for Washington Co.) of the county of Washington, and state of Colorado, having offered to pay the sum of six dollars and eighty cents, being the whole amount of taxes, interest and costs then due, and remaining unpaid on said property, for the above described property which was the least quantity bid for, and payment of said sum having been made by him to the said treasurer, the said property was stricken off to him at that price.' This was followed by the allegations of the sale of the certificate by the county, its assignment to the defendant, his payment of subsequent taxes, and the other matters, including the execution of the deed to him, etc. Under the ruling of this court in the case of Bryant v. Miller, 48 Colo. 192, 109 P. 959, this deed recites facts, if true, which make void the sale upon which it is based.
After the admission in evidence of this deed, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOARD OF COM'RS OF PITKIN COUNTY v. Timroth
...defendant ... must be limited in proof to the issue tendered. Id. at 294, 107 P. at 292 (emphasis added); see also Newsom v. Jacobs, 51 Colo. 579, 582, 119 P. 623, 624 (1911) (Because the defendant claimed to have a valid treasurer's deed, he could not then introduce evidence showing that t......
-
Timroth v. Oken
...conducted, the holder of the defective deed is entitled to a corrected deed anytime before the owner's redemption. See Newsom v. Jacobs, 51 Colo. 579, 119 P. 623 (1911); Duggan v. McCullough, 27 Colo. 43, 59 P. 743 (1899); Smith v. Griffin, 14 Colo. 429, 23 P. 905 (1890). The authority of t......
-
Emerson v. Valdez
...to reform a conveyance. but, on the contrary, the conveyance was affirmatively relied on as passing good title. The case of Newsom v. Jacobs, 51 Colo. 579, 119 P. 623, rigidly the rulings laid down in the Gillett Case and reaffirms all therein decided. Bryant v. Miller, 48 Colo. 192, 109 P.......
- Wiley v. People