State ex rel. Hunt v. Sack

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 79 Mo. 661
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. HUNT, Collector, v. SACK, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 Mo. 661

THE STATE ex rel. HUNT, Collector,

v.SACK, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.--HON. NOAH M. GIVAN' Judge.

AFFIRMED.

W. W. Wood for appellant.

W. H. Brinker for respondent.

MARTIN, C.

This was a suit by a county collector for back taxes, and was instituted on the 29th day of July, 1879. It was in the first instance brought against Johnson Stultz as owner of the delinquent land. He being a nonresident, constructive service by publication was ordered and made. Upon this service a judgment by default was rendered against him in the sum of $13.32, which was the aggregate amount of taxes due for the years 1869, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1877. This amount was adjudged a lien upon the land, and its enforcement ordered by execution. At the same term of the court this judgment was set aside, G. H. Sack, appellant, was made a party defendant, and a summons for him was issued returnable to the next term of the court. This summons, and the return upon it, were, on motion of Sack, quashed for the reason that his name had not been introduced into the petition. The petition was amended on leave of court, and Sack filed his answer admitting the assessment and levy and denying the ownership as alleged. He claimed the ownership as in himself and averred that Stultz had no interest in the land whatever. He further stated in his answer the steps which had been previously taken in the case against Stultz and pleaded as a defense that he had deposited with the clerk of the court $16.45 for payment of the delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, fees and commissions, together with all costs for which he was liable in the suit, and alleged that the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount and dismiss the case.

At the trial it was admitted that the amount so aeposited covered the taxes due, with interest, penalties and all costs which had accrued since defendant Sack had been made party, as well as the costs of making him a party. The court rendered judgment for the amount so due, and for all costs which had accrued from the date of the institution of the suit against Stultz. From this judgment the defendant Sack has appealed. It appears from the evidence that Stultz had been the owner of the land prior to 1870; that on the 20th day of April, 1870, it was purchased by A. W. Ridings at an execution sale, upon a judgment against Stultz and in favor of said Ridings. On the 13th day of October, 1879, the defendant Sack acquired the property at a sale by the public administrator in charge of the estate of said Ridings, deceased. Neither of these deeds had been recorded.

The only question in the case for our consideration is, whether the collector should have accepted the...