Pitkin v. Shacklett

• Decision Date: 16 November 1891
• Citation: 106 Mo. 571,17 S.W. 641
• Parties: PITKIN et al. v. SHACKLETT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

17 S.W. 641

106 Mo. 571

PITKIN et al. v. SHACKLETT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 16, 1891.

ASSIGNMENT OF TAX CERTIFICATE — VOID TAX-DEED — RECOVERY OF TAXES — RECORD ON APPEAL.

1. The revenue act of Missouri of 1872 (2 Wag. St. c. 118, § 207) makes the certificates of purchase of lands at a tax-sale assignable "by indorsement thereon under the hand of the purchaser." Section 216 authorizes the collector to make a deed to the assignee, but requires the deed to recite the fact of the assignment; and section 217, prescribing the form of the deed, requires a recital that the indorsement was under the hand of the purchaser, written on the back of the certificate of purchase. Held, that a deed simply reciting that the purchaser had assigned to the grantees all his "right, title, and interest in and to said land" was void, as not substantially complying with the statute. Pitkin v. Reibel, 16 S. W. Rep. 244, 104 Mo. 506, followed.

2. Under section 219, providing that, if the holder of a tax-deed, or one claiming under him by virtue thereof, be defeated in an action for the recovery of the land, he may recover of the successful party "the full amount of all the taxes paid by the tax purchaser at the time of the purchase, and all the subsequent taxes paid by him," recovery can be had for taxes paid by an assignee or person claiming under the purchaser. Pitkin v. Reibel, 16 S. W. Rep. 244, 104 Mo. 506, followed.

3. The skeleton bill of exceptions recited that plaintiffs offered in evidence "a tax-deed, which was in words and figures following: (Here clerk copy tax-deed.) And also the following tax receipts, which are in words and figures following: (Here clerk copy tax receipts.)" In preparing the record the clerk copied a tax-deed and certain tax receipts in the places indicated in the bill of exceptions. The petition and other pleadings in the case contained a description of the deed and receipts relied on, which correspond to those copied into the bill of exceptions. Held that, taking the whole record, the deed and receipts were sufficiently identified to make them a part of the bill of exceptions.

Error to circuit court, Scotland county; BEN E. TURNER, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Ejectment by H. G. Pitkin and another against Richard Shacklett. Trial was had to the court without a jury, and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

McKee & Jayne, for plaintiffs in error. E. Scofield and Smoot & Pettingill, for defendant in error.

MACFARLANE, J.

This suit is ejectment in the usual form, commenced April 16, 1885, to recover 55 acres of land off the west end of the N. ½ N. W. ¼ section 3, township 64, range 10, in Scotland county. The answer was a general denial, and a plea of 10 years' adverse possession. Plaintiffs, in their reply, set out in substance that their claim of title and right of possession was under a deed made by the collector of the county under a sale of the N. ½ N. W. ¼ of said section for taxes for the years 1869, 1870, and 1871. They also stated that they had paid taxes accruing on the land subsequent to the collector's sale, and asked, in case they were defeated in the suit for the recovery of the land, that they might have judgment for the purchase price, and for subsequent taxes paid, with penalties, interest, and cost, as provided by section 219, 2 Wag. St. p. 1206. The suit was tried to the court without a jury. On the trial plaintiffs read in evidence a tax-deed, made by the collector of the county, purporting to convey the land in controversy to them. This deed was dated, acknowledged, and recorded May 28, 1875, and recited that the N. ½ N. W. ¼ of said section 3, with other lands, was sold by the collector in October, 1872, to one M. Vogle, for $24.56, amount of taxes, interest, and cost due thereon for the years 1869, 1870, and 1871; and that the certificate of purchase had been assigned to plaintiffs. They also read receipts for taxes paid by them on the same land for the years 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875. Judgment was for defendant, and plaintiffs bring the case to this court on writ of error.

1. This tax deed is in the exact form, and contains the same recitals, as the one condemned by this court in case of Pitkin v. Reibel, 104 Mo. 506, 16 S. W. Rep. 244. For the reasons in that case given this deed must also be held insufficient to convey the title to the land to plaintiffs, and the court properly so ruled. For the reasons given in that case, however, plaintiff should have been given judgment for the purchase money paid by the purchaser, and subsequent taxes paid on the land, with penalties, interest, and cost, as provided by the law under which the sale was made.

2. It is insisted by defendant — and this is the principal contention — that this tax-deed and the receipts for subsequent taxes were not properly preserved by bill of exceptions, and therefore cannot be considered; that the bill of...