Smith v. H. D. Williams Cooperage Co.
Decision Date | 17 March 1903 |
Parties | SMITH v. H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
2. A tax deed, which on its face shows that two tracts of land were sold at one time and for a gross sum, is void, under Act March 30, 1872, § 189 (2 Wag. St. p. 1198), requiring each tract to be offered separately.
3. A tax deed void on its face will not set in motion the statute of limitations of three years (Act March 30, 1872, § 221; 2 Wag. St. p. 1207) for recovering land of a tax purchaser.
4. The provision of Act March 30, 1872, § 219 (2 Wag. St. p. 1206), for the purchaser of land for taxes holding the land till remunerated for taxes, etc., applies only when, in a suit in ejectment, the owner succeeds in recovering possession from the person in possession under a tax deed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Jas. L. Fort, Judge.
Action by John N. Smith against the H. D. Williams Cooperage Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
The suit was begun before a justice of the peace to recover one car load of stave bolts, alleged to be of the value of $75, and alleged to have been shipped to defendant from Hendrickson by one Robert Byrkett on or about the 1st day of December, 1900. After the service of summons on defendant, but before the day set for trial, defendant filed the following affidavit with the justice: —and moved that the cause be certified to the circuit court, which was done. In the circuit court the issues were submitted to the court, sitting as a jury.
Plaintiff, to sustain the issues on his part, offered the following evidence:
First. The evidence of plaintiff, who testified as follows: On cross-examination the plaintiff testified:
Second. The following tax deed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. Blake
...... 895; Brown v. Reeves (Ind.), 68 N.E. 604; City. v. Farrar, 89 N.Y.S. 1035; Smith v. Brothers. (Miss.), 38 So. 353; Paine v. Trust Co., 136 F. 527; N. P. Ry. Co. v. Kurtzman, 82 ... notice, is void as made without jurisdiction. (Williams. v. Chaplin (La.), 36 So. 859; Fennimore v. Bootner. (La.), 36 So. 860; Lambert v. Shamway ...580;. Pearce v. Perkins, 70 Miss. 276; Zingerling v. Henderson, 18 So. 432; Smith v. Cooperage Co.,. 73 S.W. 315; Zink v. McManus, 121 N.Y. 259;. Roberts v. Bank, 8 N. D., 264; Sweigle v. ......
-
Norman v. Eastburn
......G. S. 1865, secs. 30 and 54, pp. 644 and 646; R. S. 1899, secs. 3185 and 3210; Smith v. Cooperage Co., 100 Mo.App. 153; Yeaman v. Lepp, 167 Mo. 61; Corrigan v. Schmidt, 126 Mo. ......
-
Granger v. Barber
...is not applicable and will not bar their suit because the tax deed 'is void on its face.' Appellants cite Smith v. H. D. Williams Cooperage Co., 100 Mo.App. 153, 73 S.W. 315, 318, which held a tax deed to be void which showed 'affirmatively upon its face that in making the sale the collecto......
-
Smith v. H. D. Williams Cooperage Company
...73 S.W. 315 100 Mo.App. 153 JOHN N. SMITH, Respondent v. H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE COMPANY, Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. LouisMarch 17, [73 S.W. 316] Appeal from Butler Circuit Court.--Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge. REVERSED. STATEMENT. The suit was begun before a justice of the peac......