Rubey v. Huntsman
| Decision Date | 31 July 1862 |
| Citation | 32 Mo. 501 |
| Parties | THOMAS P. RUBEY, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN HUNTSMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.
Reid & Denny and H. M. Porter, for appellant.
I. It was not necessary that the sale should have taken place before the courthouse door to make the tax deed good. The evidence shows that the sale was made at the courthouse, which is in accordance with the notice.
The sale being made publicly, near the door, within full view of and within hearing distance of the door, was a substantial compliance with the law; and the rights of the parties could not have been affected thereby.
II. A recital of the place of sale is not required to be inserted in the deed; therefore, the recital in the tax deeds that the sale took place before the courthouse door does not render said sale invalid.
III. Although the tax deeds were not executed at the expiration of the two years from the date of sale, defendant was entitled to a deed at any time.
IV. The act of 1847, making deeds prima facie evidence of title under sales made under the act of 1845, only changes the burden of proof.
Burckhartt, for respondent.
I. The sale for taxes took place inside the courthouse, which was a departure from the law in a material matter, and there must be a strict compliance; and the law does not fix any limit to which they may depart without invalidating the sale. (Reed v. Morton, 9 Mo. 868; Donohoe v. Veal, 19 Mo. 331; R. C. 1845, § 95, Act concerning Revenue.)
II. The recitals in the deed are not in accordance with the facts. The deed recites that the sale took place before the courthouse door, and the evidence shows that it took place in the courthouse. (State, ex rel. Donohoe v. Richardson, 21 Mo. 420.)
III. The tax deed was not executed and recorded by the register for several years after the time for redemption had passed, and the law requires the deed to be made and recorded at the expiration of the two years, as an additional means of enabling the owner to ascertain that his land has been sold. (Reed v. Morton, 9 Mo. 868; also, § 29 of Acts of 1847, concerning sales for taxes.)
In tax sales, no title passes until the execution of deed by register. (Donohoe v. Veal, 19 Mo. 331.) The party whose land was sold being an infant, it was important that the register's deed should have been executed and recorded at the proper time, so that he would have found it out in time to redeem.
IV. There was no such adverse possession in this case as would avail anything against the rightful owner. (McDonald v. Schneider, 27 Mo. 412.)
The law requires the sale to be made publicly before the courthouse door, and if made inside, it is not such a compliance with the law as contemplated.
This is a suit for damages for trespass to land, apparently prosecuted and defended for the purpose of trying the title to the land, both parties claiming title. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The plaintiff having shown a prima facie case of title, the defendant set up a title under a tax sale, and the plaintiff gave evidence tending to impeach the validity of that tax title. The defendant, to show his title, gave in evidence a deed made to him by the register of lands, dated the 11th day of February, 1857, and which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. White
...defective in not reciting that the sale was not made at the court house door. 1 W. S., p. 609, sec. 42 and p. 612, sec. 55; Ruby v. Huntsman, 32 Mo. 501; Reid v. Martin, 9 Mo. 878; Kane v. McCown, 55 Mo. 181; Strain v. Murphy, 49 Mo. 337; Allen v. Moss, 27 Mo. 354. The only remedy Trigg had......
-
Hrovat v. Bingham
...been cited to, nor have we found, any Missouri cases on the subject of 'inside or outside.' The two cases advanced by appellant (Rubey v. Huntsman, 32 Mo. 501, and McNair v. Jenson, 33 Mo. 312) are tax cases in which the statute provided that the sale must be held 'before the courthouse doo......
-
Cabell v. Grubbs
...4 Hill, N. Y., 86; Cook v. Hacklemann et al., 45 Mo. 317; Gibbons v. Steamboat Barker, 40 Mo. 253; Stierlin v. Daly, 37 Mo. 483; Ruby v. Huntsman, 32 Mo. 501; Shaffner v. St. Louis, 31 Mo. 264; Farrar et al. v. Dean, 24 Mo. 16; Reeds v. Morton, 9 Mo. 287; Crook v. Peebly, 8 Mo. 344; Morton ......
-
Duff v. Neilson
...place of holding court is not necessarily at the "court house," and frequently is not. The law must be strictly complied with. Rubey v. Huntsman, 32 Mo. 501; Yankee v. Thompson, 51 Mo. 234; Lagrue Rains, 48 Mo. 536. (8) The deed reciting that all the requisites of the statute have been comp......