Tibbetts v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 23 October 1923 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 11834 |
Citation | 1923 OK 852,223 P. 185,101 Okla. 119 |
Parties | TIBBETTS, Trustee, v. REYNOLDS et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Taxation--Requisites of Tax Deeds--Invalidity.
Section 9746, Comp. Stat. 1921, relating to tax resale by the county, requires that the tax deed show a statement of the acts and proceedings had in making the sale and resale of the property, and under this statute the deed must set forth the acts and proceedings in connection with the tax sale and resale from which the court may determine that all legal requirements have been satisfied in order to constitute a deed valid upon its face; and, where the deed does not contain such statement, or contains only the legal conclusions of the officer executing the instrument in lieu of a statement of facts showing the performance of the acts required by the statute, the deed is void upon its face.
2. Same--Judgment--Affirmance.
Record examined, and held, that the judgment of the trial court sustaining demurrer to plaintiff's evidence should be affirmed.
Fred W. Green, for plaintiff in error.
H. M. Adams, for defendants in error.
¶1 This action was filed by the plaintiff in error to quiet title to certain real estate in the city of Guthrie. The plaintiff in error alleged that he was the owner of said property under a certain resale tax deed and that the defendants in error were claiming to be the owners of said property. A demurrer was sustained to the evidence of the plaintiff in error and judgment was rendered for the defendants in error. The defendants in error contend that the resale tax deed was void upon its face for the reason that said deed was not executed in compliance with section 9746, Comp. Stat. 1921, which requires the treasurer to prepare the deed setting out a summary of the matters and proceedings pertaining to the resale. In construing this statute, this court in Pierce v. Barrett, 93 Okla. 283, 220 P. 652, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Lockridge Grain Co.
... ... Pierce v. Barrett, 93 Okla. 283, 220 P. 652; Tibbetts v. Reynolds et al., 101 Okla. 119, 223 P. 185; Adams v. Mottley, 97 Okla. 230, 223 P. 356; Adams v. Heirs of McKinney, 98 Okla. 144, 224 P. 692.2 ... ...
-
Wolfe v. Brooke
...692, in support of their contention that the resale tax deed here involved is void upon its face. That case, as well as Tibbetts v. Reynolds, 101 Okla. 119, 223 P. 185; Pierce v. Barrett, 93 Okla. 283, 220 P. 652, and several others, did hold that a resale tax deed, which did not set forth ......
-
Treese v. Ferguson
...deed in the instant case was not void on its face because it contained said conclusion as to notice. ¶18 In Tibbetts, Trustee, v. Reynolds, 101 Okla. 119, 223 P. 185, it is held:"Section 9746, Comp. Stat. 1921, relating to tax resale by the county, requires that the tax deed show a statemen......
-
Cook v. Vincent
...223 P. 356; Adams v. Heirs of McKinney et al., 98 Okla. 144, 224 P. 692; Pierce v. Barrett, 93 Okla. 283, 220 P. 652; Tibbetts v. Reynolds, 101 Okla. 119, 223 P. 185; Adams v. Callander, 93 Okla. 228, 220 P. 344. ¶5 A reading of the foregoing cases construing this resale tax law will show t......