Ritchie v. McDuffie

• Decision Date: 18 October 1883
• Citation: 62 Iowa 46,17 N.W. 167
• Parties: RITCHIE v. MCDUFFIE AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 Iowa 46

17 N.W. 167

RITCHIE

v.MCDUFFIE AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 18, 1883.

Appeal from Greene circuit court.

Action in equity, the object of which was to enjoin the execution of a tax deed for certain real estate to the defendant. The injunction was made perpetual, and defendants appeal.C. C. Cole, for appellant.

C. H. Jackson, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

The case was submitted to the circuit court and to this court on an agreed statement of facts, the material portion of which is as follows: The real estate in controversy, in 1874, was owned by one Marmon, and he executed a mortgage to the school fund. Marmon conveyed to Raynolds and he to Smith in November, 1875. Both Raynolds and Smith agreed to pay the mortgage. In July, 1877, Smith executed an agreement whereby he bound himself to convey by warranty deed one undivided half of the premises to Jackson upon the happening of a condition. Jackson became entitled to a deed in December, 1877, but it was not executed. In February, 1880, Smith conveyed all his interest to Jackson by quitclaim deed. In 1879 the school-fund mortgage was foreclosed. To this action McDuffie was made a party, and a decree was entered declaring the mortgage to be superior to any lien held by McDuffie. In July thereafter the premises were sold by the sheriff under the decree, and Greene county became the purchaser. A certificate of purchase was issued to the county. No redemption from said sale was made by McDuffie or any one else. On the ninth day of July, 1880, Greene county, for a valuable consideration, assigned the certificate of purchase to Jackson, and the premises were conveyed to him by the sheriff. Afterwards Jackson conveyed by warranty deed to the plaintiff. The land was sold in 1876 and 1877 for the taxes due and delinquent for the years 1875 and 1876, and McDuffie purchased the same at such sale, and now claims he is entitled to a tax deed to the property in controversy.

Counsel for the appellants insist that the mortgagor to the school fund became bound to pay the taxes, and also to pay the mortgage. This may well be conceded. It is further insisted that the “grantees of the mortgages acquired the property with full knowledge of the conditions imposed upon their grantors. They became privies in estate, and substituted in the place of their grantors, and were therefore severally liable for the payment of the taxes due on said land, as well as the mortgage thereon.” In...