The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Sedgwick v. Conners

• Citation: 121 Kan. 105,245 P. 1030
• Decision Date: 08 May 1926
• Docket Number: 26,696
• Parties: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF SEDGWICK, Appellant, v. ROBERT E. CONNERS et al., Appellees
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

245 P. 1030

121 Kan. 105

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF SEDGWICK, Appellant, v. ROBERT E. CONNERS et al., Appellees

No. 26,696

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 8, 1926

Decided January, 1926.

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 4; A. MILLS EBRIGHT, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. TAXATION--Title and Rights of Tax Purchaser--Lien of Prior Taxes. Where real property has been sold for delinquent taxes and bid in for the county by the treasurer, further sales of the property for unpaid taxes in subsequent years are forbidden by statute until the property is redeemed (or otherwise disposed of by procedure not here pertinent), and an acceptance by the county treasurer of payment of subsequent unpaid taxes, which ignores the prior sale and the county's additional lien for other unpaid taxes, was unauthorized by law, and was insufficient to serve as a legal basis for a tax deed, and those claiming under such tax deed could not successfully defend against the county's right to foreclose its lien for the earlier unpaid taxes lawfully imposed on the property.

2. SAME. In 1913 the taxes on a tract of land were not paid, and in 1914 the land was sold and bid in by the county treasurer for the county. In 1914 and 1915 the taxes were also unpaid. In 1916 defendants' grantor paid the delinquent taxes for 1915 and received a tax certificate evidencing such payment. This certificate was assigned, and the assignee paid the taxes for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918 on the property, and received a tax deed therefor. Plaintiff instituted an action to foreclose the county's lien for the taxes of 1913 and 1914. Held, that defendants who hold under the tax deed and as grantees of the original fee title holder cannot prevail against the county's right to foreclose its lien for the unpaid taxes of 1913 and 1914.

3. ESTOPPEL--Counties--Collection of Taxes. In a county's capacity as a governmental agency to collect and conserve the public revenues, estoppel based upon unauthorized acts of its officials cannot be successfully invoked against the county.

Clyde M. Hudson, county counselor, for the appellant.

J Graham Campbell and Ray Campbell, both of Wichita, for the appellees.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

This was an action to foreclose Sedgwick county's lien on a small tract of land for delinquent taxes, interest and penalties. The defendants set up a tax deed issued by the county as a defense to the action. The cause was disposed of in the trial court on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was entered for defendants.

The county board appeals.

The pertinent facts were these: The taxes on the property for the year 1913 were not paid and it was bid in by the county treasurer. The taxes for the years 1914 and 1915 were likewise unpaid. On September 5, 1916, the county treasurer sold the property to one DuBois for the unpaid taxes for the year 1915. DuBois assigned his certificate of sale to one Patten, and Patten paid all subsequent taxes on the property for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918, and pursuant thereto, on December 8, 1919, the county clerk issued a tax deed to Patten for the land concerned. Patten recorded his tax deed in March, 1920, and on February 1, 1922, Patten conveyed the property to Ray Campbell. The former fee title holder executed a quitclaim deed to the property in favor of Ray Campbell, who has been in possession since February 1, 1922.

The turning point in the lawsuit depends on the legal consequences attaching to the sixth paragraph of the agreed statement of facts, which reads:

"6. That on December 8, 1919, when said tax deed was issued to said property to R. G. Patten for the unpaid taxes of 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 there was unpaid back taxes on said described property for the year 1913 of $ 220.70 and for the year 1914 of $ 202.04, together with interest on each amount as provided by law, which taxes for said years 1913 and 1914 have never been paid, and this action is brought to foreclose a lien claimed by the county on said premises for the unpaid taxes of said two years, it having bought in said property in September, 1914, and 1915, at the sales thereof for delinquent taxes of 1913 and 1914."

The trial court ruled that by virtue of the tax deed of 1919 pursuant to the sale of the property for the unpaid taxes of 1915, the present holder under that tax deed, Ray Campbell, was the owner of the property "free from any claim or lien for any taxes for the years 1913 and 1914," and that the defendants were entitled to judgment for costs.

Was this judgment correct? The precise question has not heretofore been authoritatively settled in this jurisdiction. The appellee presses upon our attention certain excerpts from 26 R. C. L. 401, and...