Robbins v. Barron

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Marston, J:
• Citation: Robbins v. Barron, 32 Mich. 36 (Mich. 1875)
• Decision Date: 27 April 1875
• Parties: Lucinda A. Robbins and another v. William B. Barron. [1]

32 Mich. 36

Lucinda A. Robbins and another v. William B. Barron. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 27, 1875

Heard April 22, 1875

Error to St. Clair Circuit.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

Atkinson Hawley & Atkinson and Hoyt Post, for plaintiffs in error.

George E. Wasey and D. C. Holbrook, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Marston, J:

Barron commenced an action of ejectment in July, 1870, to recover possession of certain lands in St. Clair county. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, who found the facts, so far as is necessary to a decision of this case, to be as follows:

That the defendant, Lucinda A. Robbins, was the owner of the land in question by patent title from the United States under patent dated in 1836; that the plaintiff Barron had a number of tax titles upon said lands, all of which the court found to be invalid, because, for certain years, the lands were not subject to assessment, and for others, that the taxes were excessive or irregular; that Barron, besides having these tax titles, had paid the taxes upon these lands for the years 1857, 1858, 1859 and 1867; that the lands were sold October 7, 1871, for the taxes of 1869, to the state, and that on the twenty-third day of February, 1872, John Atkinson became the purchaser of the rights of the state therein. The court also found as conclusions of law, that the tax titles set up by the plaintiff being invalid, and the defendant, Lucinda A. Robbins, being the owner of the original title from the government, the defendant must have judgment for the land; that as to the taxes paid by the plaintiff since 1865, and the interest thereon, amounting to eleven hundred dollars and twenty-two cents, the plaintiff was entitled to recover under and in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 281 of the Session Laws of 1865, p. 575. And that the state deed to Atkinson for the taxes of 1869 was not a bar to such recovery, and judgment was so rendered.

We think the court erred in holding that the tax deed to Atkinson did not bar the plaintiff's right to recover. Section one of the act referred to provides that in all suits and controversies involving the title to land claimed by either party under a conveyance executed by the auditor general, for the non-payment of the taxes assessed thereon, if such deed shall prove to be invalid for any cause other than such as are enumerated in section three of that act, the lien thereon for state, county and township taxes, or for either of them, or for any portion of either of them, which may have been rightfully assessed, shall not be discharged thereby, but shall remain in full force, and shall be transferred by said deed to, and vested in, the grantee therein named, his heirs and assigns, and the owner of such lands shall not thereby be acquitted from the payment of the taxes for which the same was sold, but the party in such action or controversy holding...