Steele v. Murry
Decision Date | 28 May 1890 |
Citation | 45 N.W. 1030,80 Iowa 336 |
Parties | STEELE v. MURRY ET AL. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Cass county; N. W. MACY, Judge.
Action in chancery to enjoin the treasurer of the county from issuing a tax-deed, and the purchaser from receiving it, on account of irregularities in the tax proceeding and insufficiency of the notice of the expiration of the time for redemption. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendant appeals.L. L. Delano, J. W. Scott, and D. F. Harding, for appellants.
Phelps & Temple, for appellee.
1. The main objections made by plaintiff to the tax-title involved in this action are (1) that the taxes for the years wherein preceding taxes became delinquent were not entered upon the tax-book, as required by Code, § 845; (2) that the notice of the expiration of the time for redemption required by Id. § 894, was not given. We will waive the consideration of the first objection, as the second, in our opinion, is decisive of the case, and it is probable we would not unite in the same views upon the facts of the case involved in this question. The second objection, therefore, alone demands consideration. Section 894 contains this provision:
The notice contemplated in this section is to be served upon the person in possession of the land. What is the notice which is to be served upon him? The word “notice,” used in the language of the statute above quoted, means a written paper containing the statements or...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Plumb v. City of Grand Rapids
-
Woodruff & Son v. Rhoton
...did not require that the lienholder be told in the notice of the time limit. It is not such a statute as appeared in Steele v. Murry, 80 Iowa 336, 45 N.W. 1030, cited by appellants, where the statute set out what was to be 'stated' in the Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain......
-
Rector & Wilhelmy Co. v. Maloney
...It is our conclusion that the notice was not sufficient, and the right of redemption was not, therefore, cut off.” Steele v. Murry (Iowa), 45 N.W. 1030. The statutory expression, “And had been duly assessed and properly charged on the tax books or duplicate for the year …” (of the assessmen......
- Steele v. Murry