Richards v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 05 June 1894 |
| Docket Number | 5660 |
| Citation | 59 N.W. 777,40 Neb. 879 |
| Parties | L. D. RICHARDS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. JOHN D. HATFIELD, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court of Antelope county. Heard below before ALLEN, J.
AFFIRMED.
O. A Williams, County Attorney, for appellant:
The action cannot be maintained on account of laches. (North v. Platte County, 29 Neb. 447; Montgomery v Noyes, 11 S.W. [Tex.], 138; Terry v. Fontaine, 2 S.E. [Va.], 743; McCartin v. Traphagan, 11 A [N. J.], 165; Barnett v. Barnett, 2 S.E. [Va.], 733; Chamberlain v. Town of Lyndeborough, 14 A. [N. H.], 865; Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 14; Alexander v. Overton, 22 Neb. 229.)
Taxes must be paid in money as provided by law. Collectors cannot receive check in payment. (Cooley, Taxation [2d ed.], 152; 2 Desty, Taxation, 694; Ediott v. Miller, 8 Mich. 132; Cedar County v. Jenal, 14 Neb. 254.)
The legislature intended to do away with the common law proof of payment with reference to taxes, and to provide proof by receipt, or by the entry of payment in the tax books, and no other mode of proof is allowable. (Consolidated Statutes, secs. 3193, 4002, 4006.)
N. D. Jackson, contra:
The appellees were not guilty of laches. (Boman v. Wathen, 1 HOW [U. S.], 189; Jones v. Lloyd, 117 Ill. 597; Bausman v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 197; Napton v. Leaton, 71 Mo. 358; Platt v. Platt, 58 N.Y. 646; Sedlak v. Sedlak, 14 Ore., 540; Larzelere v. Starkweather, 38 Mich. 96; Learned v. Foster, 117 Mass. 365.)
When the taxpayer attends at the office of the proper officer and pays to such officer the amount of his taxes and specifies the purpose for which the money is paid, he has performed the only duty the public requires of him in that regard; and the fact of such payment may be established the same as the payment of any other debt or obligation.
L. D. Richards brought this suit in the district court of Antelope county against John D. Hatfield, the treasurer thereof, to enjoin him from selling certain lands described in the pleadings, for taxes levied thereon for the years 1872 to 1879, both inclusive, on the ground that such taxes were fully paid by the grantor of Richards and others early in the year 1880. The district court found that the taxes had been paid as alleged by Richards and others, and entered a decree perpetually enjoining the treasurer of Antelope county and his successors in office from selling the lands for the said taxes. The case is before us on appeal. The facts as disclosed by the record may be summarized as follows:
On the 1st of March, 1880, one John I. Redick was the owner of the lands described in the pleadings in this case, and about that time he entered into a contract with Richards and others to sell to them these lands and other lands in said county. By the terms of his contract Redick was to convey these lands to Richards and others free and clear of all incumbrances whatever and by deeds of general warranty. For the purpose of carrying out his contract with Richards and others, Redick, about the 1st of March, 1880, went to Oakdale, the then county seat of Antelope county, and procured the county clerk of said county to make abstracts of all the lands he had contracted to sell Richards and others. At the same time Redick requested and obtained from the county treasurer a statement of all the taxes then due and unpaid upon the lands he had contracted to sell Richards and others for the years 1872 to 1879, both inclusive. These taxes amounted at that date to $ 1,221, and Redick, to pay said taxes to said treasurer, drew his check on the Omaha National Bank for said some of money, payable to the order of said treasurer. King, the county treasurer, accepted this check, and shortly afterwards it was presented to the bank on which it was drawn, paid, and charged to Redick's account. At the time that Redick paid the taxes by the check aforesaid to the treasurer he did not procure from the treasurer the statutory tax receipts, for the reason that they were then not made out, and as it would require some time to make them out, the treasurer executed and delivered to Redick a receipt for the $ 1,221, reciting that it was in full payment of all the taxes due upon the lands which Redick had contracted to sell Richards and others, and the treasurer promised Redick at the time that he would in a few days make up the formal statutory receipts and send them to him. At the same time the treasurer certified, on the abstracts of title which Redick had procured the county clerk to make of the lands, that all the taxes assessed against said lands for the years 1872 to 1879, both inclusive, had been fully paid. The reason that Redick did not obtain from the county treasurer at the time he paid the taxes the statutory receipts for such taxes appears to be that it would require the treasurer several days to make them out and Redick was anxious to return to his home. It is not shown by the record whether such statutory receipts were ever made out by the treasurer, but if they were they never came into the possession of Redick or the appellees. The treasurer's tax books of Antelope county contain no entries showing that any of the taxes on these lands for the years 1872 to 1879, both inclusive, or any of those years, have ever been paid. Redick took the abstracts of title made of the lands for him by the county clerk and certified by the county treasurer as above stated and the receipt for the taxes paid by him to the treasurer on the lands and turned them all over to the appellees in this case. The record does not show that the appellees ever knew, until about the time of the bringing of this suit, but that the treasurer's tax books of Antelope county showed that the taxes on these lands had been paid for the years above stated; nor does the record contain any evidence that the authorities of Antelope county at any time made any threats or efforts to collect any of the taxes on these lands for said years until about the time of the bringing of this suit. The receipt given by King, the county treasurer, and turned over to him by the appellees, was not produced on the trial, but its absence was accounted for. There is no conflict in the evidence in the case, and the only issue is whether or not the taxes on the lands for the years 1872 to 1879, both inclusive, and for which taxes the treasurer was threatening to sell the lands, had been paid by Redick, the grantor of the appellees. To reverse this decree the appellant makes the following contentions:
1. That the appellees did not bring their suit within a reasonable time, as ten years had elapsed between the date of the payment of the taxes by Redick and the commencement of their action. In other words, the argument is that the appellees have been guilty of laches, have shown no reasonable excuse for the great delay in bringing the suit, and that their claim is a stale one. There is no rule of law which requires an action for equitable relief to be brought within any given time. Whether the bringing of such an action in equity has been unreasonably delayed, and whether the complainants therein have been guilty of laches in not bringing it sooner, are questions to be determined from the facts and circumstances in the case. In the case at bar the appellees received from their grantor in 1880, along with their conveyances for these lands, abstracts of title therefor. These abstracts contained the certificate of the then county treasurer of Antelope county that all the taxes in controversy had been paid, and the appellees also had in their possession a receipt given by the treasurer to the grantor of appellees for the money paid by said grantor to said treasurer for the taxes. We do not think that under these circumstances the appellees were required to doubt that the taxes were paid; nor that they were required to go to the treasurer's office of Antelope county and examine his tax books to ascertain if he had entered on said tax books the payment of these taxes; and if the appellees were bound to know that the tax books in the treasurer's office did not contain entries showing the payment of these taxes, still the appellees were under no obligation to bring any suit to enjoin the collection of the taxes before some effort or threat was made to collect them by the authorities of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial