Stewart v. Elliott, 12,266

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam:
Citation63 Kan. 851,66 P. 986
PartiesJOHN T. STEWART v. M. M. ELLIOTT
Decision Date07 December 1901
Docket Number12,266

66 P. 986

63 Kan. 851

JOHN T. STEWART
v.
M. M. ELLIOTT

No. 12,266

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 7, 1901


Decided July, 1901.

Error from Sumner district court; W. T. MCBRIDE, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Kos Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Julia F. V. Harris, and J. S. Dey, for defendant in in error.

DOSTER, C. J., JOHNSTON, SMITH, ELLIS, JJ.

OPINION

[63 Kan. 852] Per Curiam:

We see no error in the rulings of the court below prejudicial to the plaintiff in error. He bid in his own property at tax sale. By withholding his deed from record and having the tax certificate issued in the name of Louis H. Stewart, his brother, he made it appear that the transaction was not a payment by him of the taxes, but a bona fide purchase by his brother. The true state of facts appeared when the plaintiff in error testified as a witness in the case of Churchill v. Elliott. The discovery of the fraud practised on plaintiff below dated from that time, and the record of that case, with Stewart's testimony therein, was received in evidence in this one for the purpose of showing when the right of action of defendant below was discovered. The plaintiff in error sold something which he did not own. The tax certificate, on its face, appeared to be a valid lien on the land, but, when the truth was disclosed, the lien had no foundation. It was the duty of Stewart to pay his taxes, being the owner of the land, and what he did amounted to nothing more than a payment of them. The case was fairly tried, and a just conclusion arrived at in the court below, and its judgment will be affirmed.

DOSTER, C. J., JOHNSTON, SMITH, ELLIS, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • McCoy v. Hickman, 17,000
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Julio 1911
    ...of a bid made at a tax sale and payment thereunder can not change the legal result between [116 P. 826] the parties. (Stewart v. Elliott, 63 Kan. 851, 66 P. 986; Manley v. Debentures Co., 64 Kan. 573, 68 P. 31.) It is contended, however, that the holder of the tax deed should be allowed a l......
  • Shattuck v. Harvey, 12,264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Diciembre 1901
    ...a new trial. The testimony was not preserved, and, therefore, not many of the points made in the case are open for review. The petition [63 Kan. 851] stated a cause of action sufficient to sustain the judgment. The fact that the plaintiffs, the county and the city, did not have the same kin......
2 cases
  • McCoy v. Hickman, 17,000
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Julio 1911
    ...of a bid made at a tax sale and payment thereunder can not change the legal result between [116 P. 826] the parties. (Stewart v. Elliott, 63 Kan. 851, 66 P. 986; Manley v. Debentures Co., 64 Kan. 573, 68 P. 31.) It is contended, however, that the holder of the tax deed should be allowed a l......
  • Shattuck v. Harvey, 12,264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Diciembre 1901
    ...a new trial. The testimony was not preserved, and, therefore, not many of the points made in the case are open for review. The petition [63 Kan. 851] stated a cause of action sufficient to sustain the judgment. The fact that the plaintiffs, the county and the city, did not have the same kin......

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