State ex rel. Donohoe v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 31 July 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 420 |
| Parties | THE STATE, ex rel., DONOHOE v. RICHARDSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The purchaser at a tax sale of several tracts, separately sold and bid off, is entitled to a deed from the register reciting the fact that they were so sold and purchased.
2. But it is not necessary that the deed should recite that the register, upon due examination, is satisfied that all the requisites of the law have been complied with, as the execution of the deed furnishes as good evidence that he is so satisfied as would a recital.
W. Adams, for the relator.
Gardenhire, for respondent.
This is a petition for a mandamus on the register of lands, compelling him to issue a deed to Stephen Donohoe, for lands sold for taxes, on which, it is represented, that the said Donohoe, at a sale of lands for the taxes for the year 1851, made by the collector of Linn county, on the first Monday in October, in the year of our Lord 1852, became the purchaser of five several tracts or parcels of land, which were separately sold for the sum of one dollar for each tract, which said sums were paid by the said Donohoe; that more than two years have elapsed since said sale, and that all the prerequisites necessary to entitle him to a deed under the law have been complied with.
It is further represented that, in January, 1855, Donohoe applied to the register for a deed for the said lands, who delivered him one. This deed was refused by Donohoe on two grounds; first, because the deed made it appear that the lands were sold and purchased in a lump or in one body, and at one bid, against the truth of the case; secondly, that the deed fails to recite the fact that the register of lands was satisfied, upon due examination, that all the requisitions of the law had been complied with. These facts are not controverted by the register, and the case is submitted to the court upon the petition and return.
It is clear, from the facts as agreed, that the first objection to the deed is a valid one. The deed does not state the truth of the case, and a purchaser is entitled to a conveyance which recites the various acts of sale in the manner they actually took place. The law never contemplated that delinquent lands should be sold in the lump. A deed showing that lands were sold in this manner, could not be contradicted, and a purchaser would not be at liberty to prove that they were sold in the manner required by law. The several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Eastburn
......181; Williamson v. White, . 28 S. E. (Ga.) 846; State ex rel. v. Elliott, 114. Mo.App. 562; State ex rel. v. Richardson, 21 ......
-
Shelton v. Franklin
...... ever passed from either the United States or the State. because better evidence exists. The fire that destroyed the. Pemiscot ... Yeamans v. Lepp, 167 Mo. 61; State ex rel. v. Elliott, 114. Mo.App. 562; Corrigan v. Schmidt, 126 Mo. 304;. ... amount each division sold for. State ex rel. v. Richardson, 21 Mo. 420; Keene v. Barnes, 29 Mo. 384; Smith v. Williams Cooperage ......
-
Boyd v. Ellis
......W. Husted. Skelton v. Sackett, 91 Mo. 377; State ex rel. v. Cook, 82. Mo. 185. Hence no title passed and judgment can be ......
-
Voights v. Hart
...charter required a sale of each lot separately for the taxes due on it. [Kansas City Charter, 1909, sec. 28, art. V.] In State ex rel. v. Richardson, 21 Mo. 420,421, court said: "The law never contemplated that delinquent lands should be sold in the lump. A deed showing that lands were sold......