Rowe v. Current River Land & Cattle Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1903
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: ROWE et al. v. CURRENT RIVER LAND & CATTLE CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

73 S.W. 362

99 Mo. App. 158.

ROWE et al. v. CURRENT RIVER LAND & CATTLE CO.^*

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 3, 1903.

VOID TAX DEED—RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID.

1. One whose tax deed is held void is not entitled to recover of the successful party the amount paid by him at the tax sale and subsequent taxes paid by him; such relief not being afforded by Acts 1897, p. 74, entitled "An act to enlarge the jurisdiction of courts of record in suits to determine and quiet the title to real estate," or by any other act.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Action by Thomas J. Rowe and others against the Current River Land & Cattle Company. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Modified.

John C. Brown, for appellants. L. B. Shuck, for respondent.

REYBURN, J.

This is an action brought under the provisions of an act of the Legislature of Missouri approved March 15, 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 74), being sections 650-652 of the present statutes, to determine the interests and quiet the title to a tract of realty in Shannon county. The material allegations of plaintiffs' petition were that they owned and claimed to have title in fee simple to the tract described, which was not in the actual possession of any person, but that the defendant claimed some title, estate, or interest in such real estate adverse to the estate of plaintiffs therein; and plaintiffs prayed the court to try, ascertain, and determine the interests and title of plaintiffs and defendant, respectively, to the realty, and by its decree adjudge and define whatever interests the several parties plaintiffs and defendant might have therein. Defendant's answer alleged that it claimed title to the land described in plaintiffs' petition by virtue of a sheriff's deed under a sale for back taxes made on the 14th day of September, 1887, based on a judgment rendered on the 16th day of March, 1887, by the circuit court of Shannon county against the record owners of the land, as appeared from the records of said county, for the back taxes for the years ____; that at the sale thereof defendant in good faith purchased such lands, and had ever since claimed title thereto, and by virtue of such sale and purchase by defendant, defendant liquidated and paid off the sum of $36.49 taxes then standing against said lands, which were a lien thereon, and that since such purchase defendant had paid on said lands and discharged therefrom the further sum of $50.42 taxes; and the defendant prayed that, if the title to such land was adjudged in the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court be that plaintiffs refund and pay to defendant the sum of $86.91, the amount of taxes so discharged and paid by defendant. The reply was a general denial. The cause was tried before the court, which rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that the legal and equitable title to the real estate involved was in the plaintiffs, subject, however, to a lien against it in the aggregate of $86.90 for taxes extinguished by defendant in purchasing the land at the sheriff's sale for taxes, and for taxes paid by defendant, after such purchase, in favor of defendant, and rendered judgment, in accordance with such finding, that the legal and equitable title was adjudged to be in plaintiffs, subject to the lien above in favor of defendant for the sum of $86.90.

The case has been submitted to this court upon the following agreed statement of facts: "It is admitted that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant have ever been in actual possession of the real estate in controversy, and that this is an action to settle, try, and define title to real estate under the provisions of an act entitled `An act to enlarge the jurisdiction of courts of record in suits to determine and quiet the title to real estate,' approved March 15, 1897. Acts 1897, p. 74. It is further admitted that one David Rowe procured a patent of the land in controversy from the United States in the year 1860, and that said David Rowe duly conveyed said land to the plaintiffs herein on the 12th day of August, 1897. It is admitted that defendant claimed the property under and through a sheriff's deed for back taxes, based on a suit begun in the circuit court of Shannon county, Missouri, on January 2, 1887, in which suit the state of Missouri ex rel. W. M. Freeman, collector of revenue of Shannon Co., Missouri, was plaintiff, and E. E....