Thomas v. Rehwinkel
| Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 15,244 |
| Parties | THOMAS ET AL. v. REHWINKEL ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied July 2, 1936.
Transfer denied September 30, 1936.
1. APPEAL---Review---Special Finding and Conclusions---Objections to Conclusions Only---Admits Facts Found.---Where appellant objects only to the conclusions of law the Appellate Court is bound by the facts as found and will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. p. 477.
2. TAXATION---Titles---Purchasers of Invalid Title---Remedies.---One purchasing land at a tax sale, where the title proves to be ineffectual, may quiet title to a fractional interest (Acts 1919, ch. 58, 297, p. 198.), or may proceed with sale of the land in which case he is entitled to the same lien which the state had. (Acts 1919, ch. 58, 298 p. 198.) p. 478.
3. TAXATION---Tax Titles---Sale of Fractional Interests.---The purchaser at a tax sale has the option of deciding what portion of the land he is willing to take as security for the amount of taxes and costs he pays. p. 478.
4. TAXATION---Tax Titles---Purchasers of Invalid Title---Remedies.---Where the purchaser at a tax sale bought only a fractional interest, and the conveyance to him proved invalid, he was entitled to the lien the state had against the entire tract, together with interest and charges from the date of sale and subsequent taxes paid with similar interest. p. 478.
From Carroll Circuit Court; Edward E. Pruitt, Judge.
Action by George H. Thomas and another against Emil C. Rehwinkel and another to foreclose tax liens. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appealed.
Reversed.
William A. Dresser, Albert W. Ewbank and Thomas Everett, for appellants.
Reidelbach Brothers & Spangler, Pickens, Gause, Gilliom & Pickens, Harry W. McDowell, Robert E. Thompson and Harry M. Snideman, for appellees.
This was an action to foreclose tax liens upon two tracts of land in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. At a sale of delinquent taxes the appellant's assignor offered to pay the delinquent taxes on these two tracts and take as security therefor a fractional interest of each tract. This was done and redemption not having been made the certificates which appellant's assignor had taken were presented to the auditor and deeds therefor demanded. The auditor refused to execute the deeds until the certificates were accompanied by a survey and description of the parts of said land so purchased. The surveyor of the county afterwards prepared the descriptions to a 1/28th interest in one tract and a 1/76th interest in another tract and specifically described them each coming out of the northwest corner of the respective tracts and deeds to such described premises were executed by the auditor and treasurer of the county purporting to convey the title thereto to these appellants. The appellants later, discovering that their deeds were invalid and ineffectual to convey title, brought this suit to recover from the owner of such lands the amount of such taxes together with all lawful charges and interest at 20% per annum and asking that such claim be a lien upon such lands. There is a special finding of facts and conclusions of law thereon, therefore there is no necessity that the pleadings involved here be set out or discussed, since there is no question raised except as to the conclusions of law. The special findings set out the facts enumerated above and in addition thereto disclose that the lands were properly described and were subject to taxation at the date of the assessment and that a certificate in proper form had been given by the proper officer and that there had been no redemption and that the auditor did not "on or before the day of sale fixed, to-wit: the first Monday in February, 1923, certify on said record immediately following such notice the manner in which the same was posted and the place and for what length of time it was printed and posted;" and that the lands were advertised for sale and sold at the tax sale February 12, 1923. The findings then set out the amount of the delinquent current taxes for 1922 and cost of the certificates, which in one instance was $ 29.90 and in the second instance $ 297.00. That the treasurer commenced the sale of land at the outside door of the court house and then adjourned into the treasurer's office to continue the sale, where these two tracts were sold and that the appellant's assignor by his bid offered to pay the aforementioned sums for a 1/28th interest in one tract and a 1/76th interest in the other; that the auditor issued the certificates to the purchaser and that he duly assigned the certificates to the appellants and that these certificates were later exchanged for deeds, which deeds were given after the surveyor made the descriptions as aforesaid.
Upon this finding of facts the court concluded (1) as a matter of law the tax deeds executed by the auditor to the appellants were invalid and ineffectual as a conveyance...
To continue reading
Request your trial