State Ex Rel. Ols v. Romero

Decision Date08 May 1919
Docket NumberNo. 2231.,2231.
Citation25 N.M. 290,181 P. 435
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE ex rel. OLS et al.v.ROMERO, County Treasurer and Collector.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the county purchased a tax sale certificate at a tax sale on August 17, 1912, for delinquent taxes for the year 1910, and said certificate was not recorded until June 18, 1913, the statute of 1913 (Laws of 1913, c. 84, §§ 36 and 38) applies to such sale and recording, and the owner of the property has three years from the recording of the certificate to redeem. A tender of taxes by the owner on November 16, 1916, is not within the period allowed by the statute for redemption, following Pace v. Wight, 181 Pac. 430, not yet officially reported.

Where the statute provides (Laws of 1913, c. 84, § 36) that the duplicate certificate of the tax sale which has been purchased by the county shall be sold by the collector, and if it cannot be sold at private sale before the regular sale of property for delinquent taxes in the next succeeding year, then it is to be sold at public auction at such delinquent tax sale, the statute does not thereby limit the method of sale to a sale at public auction after the period specified, but the collector and treasurer may sell it at any time at private sale.

Appeal from District Court, Torrance County; E. L. Medler, Judge.

Mandamus by the State of New Mexico, on the relation of Mrs. Kathleen Ols and another, against Raymundo Romero, as Treasurer and Collector of Torrance County, N. M. Demurrer to complaint overruled, demurrer to answer sustained, judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

On the 27th day of July, 1917, a complaint was filed in the district court of the state of New Mexico within and for the county of Torrance alleging, among other things, that plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of lots 11 and 12 in block 37 of the Duran, N. M., town site; that on the 17th day of August, 1912, there was due and owing on said property taxes in the sum of $2.90, for which sum the treasurer and collector of Torrance county did on the 17th day of August, 1912, execute a certificate of sale for said lands to the county of Torrance; that on the 16th day of November, 1915, the certificate of sale for said lands was sold to John Ulury for the sum of $2.90; that on the 16th day of November, 1916, plaintiff tendered the amount of taxes due on said real estate, together with penalty and interest on said sum, and demanded a certificate of redemption; that the treasurer and collector of Torrance county refused to accept the said sum, and refused to issue plaintiff the certificate of redemption, and still refuses so to do, and praying that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue commanding the said treasurer and collector to accept the taxes, together with all costs and interest due thereon on said lots 11 and 12, block 37, of the Duran town site, and that the said treasurer and collector issue a certificate of redemption for said lands and real estate.

Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that more than three years have elapsed between the date of sale of tax certificate and date plaintiff tendered the amount of taxes.

The demurrer was overruled on the 3d day of December, 1917. The defendant then answered that the property was assessed for taxes in 1910 to unknown owners; that on the 17th day of August, 1912, the property was sold to the county of Torrance as appears from tax sale certificate 484; that the said tax sale certificate was recorded on the 18th day of June, 1913, in Book 6, page 74, of the records of tax sale certificates of Torrance county; that on the 16th day of November, 1915, he sold and assigned the said tax sale certificate to John Ulury, and that on the 17th day of November, 1915, said assignment of tax sale certificate 484 to John Ulury was recorded by the treasurer of Torrance county, N. M.; that on the 13th day of July, 1916, the treasurer and collector executed and delivered a tax deed to John Ulury for the said lots.

Plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it does not state a defense to the matters and things set up in the complaint for the reason: (1) That on the 18th day of June, 1913, when tax sale certificate No. 484 was recorded, the recording of said certificate was null and void and of no effect for the reason that chapter 22 of the Laws of 1899 and chapter 134 of the Laws of 1905 were repealed by chapter 84 of the Laws of 1913; (2) that the answer shows that certificate was sold and assigned on the 16th day of November, 1915, and that the assignment of certificate was recorded on November 17, 1915, which was not sufficient, as chapter 84 of the Laws of 1913 requires that the assignment and certificate be recorded, and that the owner have three years from the date of such recording of the tax sale certificate in which to redeem said property by paying to the county treasurer for the use of the purchaser or his assigns, the amount of purchase money with interest, together with the taxes which may have been paid upon the property by the purchaser or his assigns; (3) because the treasurer of Torrance county executed a deed to the purchaser on the 13th day of July, 1916, for lots 11 and 12, block 37, of the Duran town site, eight months from the date the certificate was assigned, when such tax deed could not have been executed and delivered until three years from the 17th day of November, 1915, and that said tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Grieb v. National Bank of Kentucky's Receiver
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 5 December 1933
    ... ... county, regularly assessed for state and county taxes, was ... sold by the sheriff of Jefferson county in the years 1929, ... 1930, ... right of redemption, should be liberally and benignly ... construed. State of Mont. ex rel., etc., v ... McCollough, 85 Mont. 435, 279 P. 246, 66 A.L.R. 1033; ... Corbett v. Nutt, 10 ... 291, 191 P. 513; ... Warner v. Pile, 105 Kan. 724, 185 P. 1041; State ... v. Romero, 25 N.M. 290, 181 P. 435; Negus v ... Yancey, 22 Iowa 57; Annotations, 1 A.L.R. 143 ... ...
  • Kreigh v. State Bank of Alamogord0.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 24 May 1933
    ...during the existence of the 1899 law. The holding in Pace v. Wight was followed consistently and upon the same reasoning in State v. Romero, 25 N. M. 290, 181 P. 435; Crawford v. Dillard, 26 N. M. 291, 191 P. 513; Lewis v. Tipton, 29 N. M. 269, 222 P. 661; and Christian v. Lockhart, 31 N. M......
  • Lewis v. Tipton
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 19 January 1924
    ...See Crawford v. Dillard, 26 N. M. 291, 191 Pac. 513. See, also, Pace v. Wight, 25 N. M. 276, 181 Pac. 435, and State v. Romero, 25 N. M. 290, 181 Pac. 435, where we held that the act of 1913, above mentioned, had retroactive operation in all cases where the certificates of sale were held by......
  • McNutt v. Lovelace, 3737.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 17 April 1933
    ...a different interpretation, which solves the question; not so much by meeting, as by ignoring, these difficulties. State ex rel. Ols v. Romero, 25 N. M. 290, 181 P. 435, 437, involved property struck off to the county in 1912 under the 1899 (Duncan) act (chapter 22). Following Pace v. Wight......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT