Stewart v. Colter

• Decision Date: 11 January 1884
• Citation: 18 N.W. 98,31 Minn. 385
• Parties: Nannie W. Stewart v. Charles Colter and another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

18 N.W. 98

31 Minn. 385

Nannie W. Stewart v. Charles Colter and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 11, 1884

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, alleging herself to be the owner in fee of "the following described real estate, situated in the county of Ramsey and state of Minnesota, to wit: Lots numbered four (4) and five (5) in Scribner & Crittenden's subdivision of lots eight (8) and thirteen (13) in Smith & Lott's outlots, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the register of deeds of Ramsey county." She further alleges that her title arises from tax sales made respectively December 17, 1874, September 20, 1878, and September 18, 1879; that more than five years has elapsed since the first, and more than three years since each of the other sales, and no redemption has been made, nor any action brought to set aside any of the certificates of sale or test the validity of any of the sales, nor has any defense alleging the invalidity of any of the sales been interposed in any action. That the lots are vacant and unoccupied, and the defendant claims some interest in them adverse to plaintiff. Judgment is asked that the title be quieted in plaintiff, etc.

The defendants answered, putting in issue the plaintiff's alleged title, and asserting title in themselves, which assertion was put in issue by the reply. At the trial before Brill, J., without a jury, the plaintiff was permitted against the defendants' objection and exception, to amend her complaint by inserting the words "in block 5" after the words "lots numbered 4 and 5" in the description of the property in the complaint.

To sustain her title under the tax sale of December 17, 1874 the plaintiff introduced in evidence, under objection and exception, two auditor's certificates, (one for each lot,) each conveying one of the lots to the state, and in each of which the lot bid in for the state and conveyed to it is described as in "block 5 of Scribner & Crittenden's subdivision of lots eight (8) and thirteen (13) of Smith & Lott's outlots," and assignments from the state to the plaintiff, describing the lots as in "block 5, Scribner & Crittenden's subdivision of lots 8 and 13, Smith & Lott's addition of outlots to St Paul." Also the tax judgments rendered November 16, 1874, against the lots, in each of which the lot is described as in "block 5, Scribner & Crittenden's subdivision of lots 8 and 13 of Smith & Lott's outlots." Each of these assignments was made to "Nannie Stewart," bears date December 15, 1876, and recites that the land had been bid in for the state, and that she has paid into the county treasury "the amount for which the same was so bid in, and all subsequent taxes, penalties, and interest, amounting to," etc.

To prove title under the sale in 1878, for the taxes of 1877, the plaintiff introduced, under objection and exception, certificates from the county auditor to "Nannie Stewart" as the purchaser at the sale, dated September 20, 1878, with the auditor's certificate, dated February 27, 1883, that the time for redemption had expired, and the property remained unredeemed. In these certificates of sale the lots are described as in the certificates of 1874.

To prove title under the sale in 1879, the plaintiff introduced "state assignment certificates," in which "Nannie Stewart" is named as assignee, the lots are described as in the former certificates, and it is recited that the tax sale of 1879, at which the lots were bid in for the state, was made in proceedings to enforce payment of delinquent taxes for 1876 and 1878. The defendants offered the tax judgment rendered August 30, 1879, under which the sale was had, which showed that the judgment was rendered for and included the taxes for 1876 as well as for 1878. This was objected to on the ground that, by reason of the statute of limitations, it was incompetent to show any invalidity in the proceedings or attack the title of the plaintiff under the sale in 1879. The objection was sustained and the defendants excepted. The court also excluded proof of the published delinquent list for 1874, with the notice for tax-judgment, which were offered to impeach the judgment.

The plaintiff, in connection with her certificates, and to identify the land therein described with that described in the complaint, introduced the original plat entitled "Smith & Lott's outlots," and also that entitled "Scribner & Smith's subdivision of lots 8 and 13 of Smith & Lott's...