Ontario Land Company v. Jay Yordy
| Citation | 29 S.Ct. 278,53 L.Ed. 449,212 U.S. 152 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
| Parties | ONTARIO LAND COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JAY YORDY and Minnie E. Yordy, His Wife |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
On May 16, 1889, plaintiff's grantors, Chester A. Congdon and Clara B. Congdon, his wife, then the owners of the west half (W. 1/2) of the southeast quarter (S.E. 1/4) and the east half (E. 1/2) of the southwest quarter (S. W. 1/4) of section twenty-four (24), in township thirteen (13) north, range eighteen (18) east, Willamette meridian, excepting 10 acres which belonged to Charles M. Holton, platted their land as 'Capital Addition to North Yakima.' According to the plat, in the central portion was a body of land marked 'reserved' and not divided into lots and blocks. If it had been so divided the ground would have made four blocks, and, to be in harmony with the other numbering, would have been blocks 352, 353, 372, and 373. Nothing was shown on the plat to indicate the meaning of the term 'reserved,' nor the use to which the tract was to be applied. For the years 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895 the proper assessor listed and assessed for taxation with other real estate that which he described as blocks 352 and 372 in 'Capital Addition to North Yakima.' All taxes on the property so listed for these years became delinquent. The county foreclosed the same in proceedings conforming to the statutes of Washington, and under the decree the property was sold and a tax deed executed to the defendant Jay Yordy, who paid all subsequent taxes levied thereon. After the platting by Congdon and wife, and in 1890, they deeded all the land to the plaintiff, describing it not by lots and blocks, but by the government descriptions, and with no allusion to the Capital Addition to North Yakima. In September, 1904, after the tax deed had been executed, delivered, and recorded, the plaintiff platted that portion of Capital Addition marked 'reserved' as 'Heerman's Addition to North Yakima,' and subdivided said reserved tract into four blocks, numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive, each block being subdivided into 16 lots. The defendant Jay Yordy had already taken possession of the tract purchased by him, claiming it under his tax deed. On March 17, 1905, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendants to recover the property, describing it as lots in blocks 1 and 2 of Heerman's Addition. The plaintiff had actual knowledge of the fact that an attempt was being made to levy and collect taxes upon that portion of its property marked 'reserved;' it denied the validity of such taxes in interviews with two county treasurers, and stood quietly by during the foreclosure proceedings and tax sale. With full knowledge it permitted the purchaser to make his purchase without any protest, and only thereafter platted the reserved tract as Heerman's Addition to North Yakima. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, but that judgment was reversed by the supreme court of the state, which ordered a judgment in favor of the defendants. 44 Wash. 239, 87 Pac. 257. Thereupon the case was brought here on error.
Messrs. Arcadius L. Agatin and William W. Billson for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Benjamin S. Grosscup for defendants in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
The contention of plaintiff in error in the state courts, as shown by the record, and also stated in the certificate of the chief justice of the supreme court of the state, is that sustaining the tax proceedings devests it of its property without due process of law, in contravention to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At the time of those proceedings, while the land in controversy was within the limits of the Capital Addition to North Yakima, it had not been divided into lots and blocks, but was simply marked on the official plat 'reserved.' In other words, according to the record there was no such property as that described, and nothing to identify any property. There being no legal description, no official identification, no one could, by an examination of the records, know what property was the subject of the proceedings. Hence, they were void, and no one was bound to take notice of them. But land may be identified, although not tech- nically or officially described, and the identification may be sufficient to sustain a contract or conveyance. The owner of property is bound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Newark v. Yeskel
...27 S.Ct. 261, 51 L.Ed. 461 (1907); Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414, 28 S.Ct. 506, 52 L.Ed. 859 (1908); Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U.S. 152, 29 S.Ct. 278, 53 L.Ed. 449 (1909). Such philosophy is not inconsistent with the recent expression of the Supreme Court of the United States in Mul......
-
Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
...259; Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414; Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526; Leigh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79; Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U.S. 152; Kentucky Union Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701; Spencer v. Merchant......
-
Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
... ... R. Buchanan; the Municipal Bond Corporation; Heim & Overly Realty Company, a Corporation for Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Who May ... parties having an interest in the land. Former enforcement ... proceeding. Laws 1872, p. 80; Raley v. Guinn, ... v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526; Leigh v ... Green, 193 U.S. 79; Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, ... 212 U.S. 152; Kentucky Union Co. v. Commonwealth ... ...
-
WC & AN Miller Development Co. v. EMIG PROPERTIES
...11 As to due process of law, cf. Castillo v. McConnico, 1898, 168 U.S. 674, 18 S. Ct. 229, 42 L.Ed. 622; Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 1909, 212 U.S. 152, 29 S.Ct. 278, 53 L.Ed. 449, affirming, 1906, 44 Wash. 239, 87 P. 257; Saranac Land & Timber Co. v. Roberts, 1900, 177 U. S. 318, 20 S.Ct. 6......