State ex rel. Rosenblatt v. Werner

• Decision Date: 01 March 1881
• Citation: 10 Mo.App. 41
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. M. A. ROSENBLATT, Respondent, v. FREDERICK WERNER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

10 Mo.App. 41

STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. M. A. ROSENBLATT, Respondent,

v.FREDERICK WERNER, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Mar. 1, 1881.

A sale of land, and a deed thereof, made by the collector in 1876, for the taxes of 1875, does not divest the State of its lien for the unpaid taxes of a previous year.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, WICKHAM, J.

Affirmed.BROADHEAD, SLAYBACK & HAEUSSLER, for the appellant, cited: Preston v. Van Gordon, 31 Iowa, 250.

KING & CHAPIN, for the respondent, cited: McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130; The State ex rel. v. Heman, 70 Mo. 441; Einstein v. Gay, 45 Mo. 62.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought under the provisions of the revenue law of 1877, to enforce against the lot described in the plaintiff's petition the lien of the State for back taxes of 1871, and to collect such back taxes by sale of the lot under judgment and execution.

The defendant, against the objection of plaintiff, was permitted to introduce evidence tending to show that this land was, in October, 1876, sold by the collector under a judgment for the taxes of 1875, to one Heffernan, and a collector's deed executed and delivered to one Sachleben, as assignee of Heffernan. This deed is dated November 4, 1878, and sets forth that the collector, in consideration of the facts recited in the deed, and of $23, the amount of the penalty, taxes and costs, and interest, assessed against the land for 1875, and by virtue of the statute, does grant, bargain, and sell to Sachleben, as assignee of Heffernan, the tract in question, habendum to him and his heirs, subject to the right of redemption provided by law. Defendants also showed that they acquired the premises from Sachleben by deedof general warranty.

This cause was tried by the court, and there was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff. The judgment was right, and should not be disturbed, unless it is to be held that the collector's deed to Sachleben divested the State of its lien for the back taxes of 1871. This is the only question which this record presents for our consideration.

The statute creating the lien provides that “the lien shall continue and be in force until all taxes, forfeitures, back taxes, and costs shall be fully paid, or the land sold or released as provided in the act.” Wag. Stats. 1872, p. 1170, sect. 60.

There is no pretence that these taxes have been paid, nor that the lands have been released as not subject to assessment, or for double assessment, or for error, which are the cases provided by the act. It does not appear that they were ever sold for the taxes of 1871; such a sale would have involved a payment of these taxes. It is admitted that the premises were forfeited or sold to the State for the taxes of 1871. But this forfeiture did not vest the title to the...