Richards v. Tarr
Decision Date | 09 November 1889 |
Citation | 22 P. 557,42 Kan. 547 |
Parties | C. I. RICHARDS v. JOHN C. TARR et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Leavenworth District Court.
EJECTMENT. The opinion states the case.
Justice affirmed.
John C Douglass, for plaintiff in error.
H. W Ide, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This is an action of ejectment, commenced by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, John C. Tarr, the plaintiff claiming title to the south 60 feet of lots 14, 15, and 16, in block 1, Day's subdivision to the city of Leavenworth, under a tax deed for city taxes. The defendant answered by a general denial. On the trial, at the April term, 1886, of the Leavenworth district court, the plaintiff's tax deed was held to be void; and thereupon the plaintiff asked the court to find that the taxes paid by him were a lien upon this tract. After the application of plaintiff was made, M. E. Tarr, the wife of John C. Tarr, on her own motion was made a party defendant over plaintiff's objection, for the purpose of resisting the application of plaintiff for the allowance of a tax lien. The court, trying the case without a jury, made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
The complaint of plaintiff is, that the court refused to find the taxes paid by him were a lien upon the tract described in his tax deed. The court evidently held that the right he might have once had was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's deed was filed for record May 20, 1882. This action was commenced against John C. Tarr May 20, 1884, but the other defendant, Mrs. M. E. Tarr, who was the owner of the property, was not made defendant until June 23, 1886. She had been occupying the premises ever since the taxes were levied. Ordinarily, where the owner occupies the premises, all right under a tax deed, either of recovery of the land or for a tax lien, is barred in two years. The plaintiff does not controvert this, but claims that the tax deed was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Culp v. Culp
...of Regents v. Linscott, 30 id. 240. Filing a tax deed for record is sufficient to start the statute of limitations to running. Richards v. Tarr, 42 Kan. 547. Absence from state will not operate to suspend the limitation prescribed in § 141 of the tax law. Beebe v. Doster, 36 Kan. 666; Edwar......
-
Demple v. Hofman
... ... occurred, and then say that his rights are preserved by such ... section. The case of Richards v. Tarr, 42 Kan. 547, ... 22 P. 557, is somewhat similar in its facts. In that case the ... plaintiff brought ejectment against the husband, basing ... ...