Wallace v. Stutsman Cnty.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1887 |
| Citation | 50 N.W. 832,6 Dak. 1 |
| Parties | Wallace et al. v. Stutsman County. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Stutsman county; W. H. Francis, Judge.
Action by Charles S. Wallace and another against Stutsman county to recover money paid by said Wallace as purchaser at certain illegal tax-sales made by the treasurer of the defendant county. The action was brought under Pol. Code, c. 28, § 78, which provides that where, “by mistake or wrongful act” of the county treasurer, land has been sold for taxes on which no tax was due at the time, the county is to save the purchaser harmless by paying him the amount of principal and interest to which he would have been entitled had the land been rightfully sold. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Prior to 1880 the land sold to plaintiff had been granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company by the United States government on certain conditions, but these conditions were not complied with by the railroad company prior to 1886. The sales to plaintiff were made for taxes due for the years 1880 and 1882, and tax certificates were issued to him; but afterwards the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, in a suit against plaintiff and the county treasurer, obtained a perpetual injunction against the issuance of tax-deeds of the lands so sold. The county refused to repay plaintiff the sums paid by him as purchaser at these tax-sales, and interest thereon, as provided by law in case of redemption from tax-sales, and this suit was brought to recover the same.
Roderick Rose, for appellant. Dodge & Camp and J. S. Watson, for respondents.
The judgment in this case is affirmed.
All of the justices concur, except Tripp, C. J., who dissents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
...in the meantime, counsel point to errors in the opinion, or the court itself makes changes or corrections therein. In Wallace v. Stutsman County, 50 N. W. 832, 6 Dak. 1, the Supreme Court of Dakota Territory held that it had no jurisdiction to grant a rehearing after the remittitur had been......
-
Moe v. Goodroad (In re Satrang's Will)
...such judgment or decision to the court from which the appeal was taken, this court loses jurisdiction over said cause. Wallace v. Stutsman County, 6 Dak. 1, 50 N. W. 832;Dempsey v. Billinghurst, 8 S. D. 86, 65 N. W. 427. See, also, Hilmen v. Nygaard, 31 N. D. 419, 154 N. W. 529, Ann. Cas. 1......
-
In re Will of Satrang
...such judgment or decision to the court from which the appeal was taken, this court loses jurisdiction over said cause. Wallace v. Stutsman County, 6 Dak. 1, 50 N.W. 832; Dempsey v. Billinghurst, 65 N.W. 427. See, also, Hilmen v. Nygaard, Ann. .Cas. 1917-A, 282; State v. Sund, 140 N.W. 716; ......
- Territory ex rel. State's Attorney v. Armstrong