La Rue v. King
| Decision Date | 12 March 1888 |
| Citation | 74 Iowa 288,37 N.W. 374 |
| Parties | LA RUE v. KING ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Adams county; R. C. HENRY, Judge.
Action brought by Frank L. La Rue to enjoin the execution of a tax deed, and to set aside the tax sale. Defendant J. M. King filed answer by which he resists the granting of the relief asked, and asks affirmative relief. A demurrer to his answer was sustained. He elected to stand on his answer, and a decree for plaintiff was rendered, as prayed. By agreement, the case as to defendant E. H. Hunter, the treasurer of Adams county, is to abide the issue as to defendant King. Defendants appeal. It is provided by Code Iowa, § 900, that no sale of school land for taxes shall prejudice the rights of the state or university therein, and that, in all cases where land is mortgaged to the school fund, only the interest of the person holding the fee shall be sold for taxes.W. S. Strawn, for appellants.
H. T. Granger, for appellee.
The land involved in this action was a part of the land granted to the state for school purposes. In 1866 Adams county entered into a contract with Mark Homan for the sale of this land. Homan failed to make the payments required by the contract, and in March, 1881, it was foreclosed. The land was sold under special execution in June, 1882; and January 8, 1884, a sheriff's deed was issued, pursuant to the sale, to the purchaser, one Snyder, who is the plaintiff's grantor. October 1, 1877, the land was sold to defendant King for the delinquent taxes of 1874-1876. The purchaser afterwards paid the taxes of 1877-1882. In December, 1886, King served plaintiff with notice of the taking of a tax deed under the sale aforesaid. The answer admits these facts, and alleges that Snyder signed the note of Homan secured by the school-land contract as surety; that judgment was rendered against him for the full amount of the note, interest, and costs in the foreclosure proceedings; that he purchased the land pursuant to and under his obligation to pay the debt; and that the land so liable in his hands, and in the hands of his grantee, for the taxes specified.
1. The first question we need to consider is the effect of the purchase by Snyder. It is claimed by appellants that the sale to him did not free the land from the taxes paid; that it only transferred to him the interest of his principal; that he could take no higher interest than that of his principal; and that such interest was specifically made, by statute, subject to the lien of a tax sale. It is true that Snyder was surety for Homan on the school-fund note, but he was not a party to the land contract. As surety it was his privilege to have the property of his principal first exhausted before his own property could be taken to satisfy the judgment debt. This being true, he had the right to have the property of his principal sold for the best price which could be obtained, and, if he was willing to pay more than any other bidder, there was nothing in the law to prevent his doing so. It is true that the price he paid for the land satisfied the judgment for the payment of which he was bound; but in law the payment was made by the principal through the sale of his property, and it not only satisfied the judgment, but discharged his contingent liability to his surety as well. In case the surety had paid the judgment without a sale of the property, he would have been entitled in equity to be subrogated to all the rights of the creditor. Searing v. Berry, 58 Iowa, 23, 11 N. W. Rep. 708. We see no reason for holding that by the sale he assumed the liabilities of his principal with the title which he received.
2. Defendants ask that the tax sale be enforced against plaintiff, or, if that cannot be done, that King be permitted to redeem from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Thompson Realty Co.
......The six. year limitation period did not commence to run until Carter. received his deed in September, 1937. Davis v. Baptist. Convention (Wyo.) 16 P.2d 151; 61 C. J. 1421,. Electrolytic Copper v. Rambler Consol., 243 P. 126;. Gallagher v. Head, 79 N.W. 387; LaRue v. King, 37 N.W. 374; Perry v. Marbury Lumber, 103. So. 580. As a matter of law, the Statute of Limitations did. not begin to run until the tax deed received by the County. was recorded, and in this case the tax deed to the County was. not recorded. Emerson v. Valdez, 135 P. 136;. Empire Ranch v. ......
-
Roth v. Munzenmaier
...the tax title is extinguished. Innes v. Drexel, 78 Iowa, 253, 43 N. W. 201;Doud v. Blood, 89 Iowa, 237, 56 N. W. 452;La Rue v. King, 74 Iowa, 288, 37 N. W. 374. To this rule there are some exceptions, not necessary to be noticed at this time. The material part of section 1445 of the Code re......