Vestal v. Morris
| Decision Date | 22 March 1895 |
| Citation | 39 P. 960,11 Wash. 451 |
| Parties | VESTAL ET AL. v. MORRIS ET UX. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; John C. Denney, Judge.
Action by Samuel Vestal and others against J. D. Morris and another to set aside a tax deed. Judgment for plaintiff. Appealed. Affirmed.
Bell & Austin and E. C. Hughes, for appellants.
Lichtenberg Shepard & Lyon and Burke, Shepard & Woods, for respondents.
When this action was called for argument, a motion was made by the respondents to strike appellants' reply brief, on the ground of failure to comply with the rules and practice of the court. The original brief of appellants consists of some four or five pages, which contain little more than a statement of the cause. Certain sections of the Code are cited therein, and one case, in support of appellants' contentions. The effect was practically to impose upon respondents the burden of presenting the entire cause here. After respondents' brief was filed, and a short time preceding the argument, appellants filed a reply brief, of some 25 or 26 pages, citing 75 or more cases. The contention of the respondents was that much of this matter should have been presented in appellants' original brief, in order that they might have had the benefit of properly answering. It is difficult to lay down a definite rule governing such matters, but we were of the opinion that the manner pursued by appellants in briefing their cause was such a substantial departure from the rules and practice as, in justice to the respondents, required the reply brief to be stricken, and the motion to strike was granted.
This action was brought by the respondents to set aside certain tax deeds which were alleged to be void on account of irregularities in the proceedings by which the land was assessed and sold for taxes, and which were claimed to be a cloud upon respondents' title. The lower court held the deeds void, and this appeal was taken. A great many irregularities are presented as showing the invalidity of said proceedings. Some of these are now conceded to be based upon directory provisions of the statute, and are therefore immaterial. Owing to the failure of appellants to properly brief the case, but a few of the other points raised will be considered. A finding of one substantial defect in the proceedings will, of course, require an affirmance.
The appellants claim title under a tax sale made in the year 1887, for taxes levied in the preceding year. It appears that the land in question was assessed in said year in the name of one Burns, while one Bartlett was the owner, and that the county officials had notice, and knew that Bartlett was the owner of the land, as it had been previously assessed to him in the year 1874. The further point is raised that the county treasurer did not make or file a notice, as required by statute, that the duplicate assessment roll for 1886 was in his hands, giving the date when the taxes must be paid, and that no such notice was ever published, and there is no record thereof; also, the sheriff's notice of the sale of delinquent taxes for the year 1886 did not state that said sale would be at public auction, and no affidavit or other evidence of its publication or posting was made or filed in the office of the treasurer of said county, and that notice of such sale, with a list of the lands to be sold, was not in fact published. Two deeds were issued to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White Pine Mfg. Co. v. Morey
...451, 39 P. 960.) A defective tax deed cannot be cured by the issuance of a second or correctionary deed, as is sought in this case. (Vestal v. Morris, supra; Hewitt v. Storch, 31 488, 2 P. 556.) Where the legislature has provided a form of deed, that form must be followed, otherwise the dee......
-
Henze v. Mitchell
... ... void. To the same effect is Anderson v. Hancock, 64 ... Cal. 455, 2 P. 31. In Vestal v. Morris, 11 Wash ... 451, 39 P. 960, it was held that the tax deed is not ... sufficient to pass title, when the property was not assessed ... ...
-
Washington Timber & Loan Co. v. Smith
... ... mere irregularity. It is, however, insisted that under the ... authority of Vestal v. Morris, 11 Wash. 451, 39 P ... [34 Wash. 639] 960, this is a fatal omission. It will be ... observed that the procedure there under ... ...
-
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Galvin
...of the question in this court. I must accept the decisions in the cases of Baer v. Choir, 7 Wash. 631, 36 P. 286, and Vestal v. Morris, 11 Wash. 451, 39 P. 960, as rules of property in this state. The original illegality in the assessment book for 1891, as affecting the lands in controversy......