Wass v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 December 1885 |
| Citation | 25 N.W. 605,34 Minn. 304 |
| Parties | Cordelia Wass v. George H. Smith |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action brought in the district court for Carlton county, under Gen St. 1878, c. 75, § 2, to determine defendant's adverse claim to real estate in that county. Defendant having answered, alleging title in himself and asking to be adjudged owner of the property, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted by Stearns, J., and defendant appeals from the judgment. Both plaintiff and defendant set forth in detail, in their pleadings, the proceedings resulting in the tax titles under which they respectively claimed.
Judgment affirmed.
M. S Stewart, for appellant.
The state is not entitled to recover twice the same tax. Therefore, when the state, after proceeding to judgment in 1880 for the taxes of 1879 upon this land, and selling and bidding it in under the judgment, elected to include the taxes of 1879 in the proceedings under Laws 1881, c. 135, it waived the rights it had acquired under the judgment and sale. And when the state, in 1881, holding the title it had acquired under the sale of 1880 for taxes of 1879, obtained a second judgment for those taxes, the second judgment necessarily merged the first, and the sale of the land to defendant under the second judgment (though for a sum less than the judgment) necessarily satisfied and discharged all claim and lien of the state upon the land for the taxes of 1879, for which the judgments were recovered. And if the first judgment was not merged in the second, still the tax sale of 1881 to appellant operated as a redemption by appellant from the tax sale of 1880. In either case the land never became forfeited to the state, and the state officers had no right to convey it to plaintiff by the deed of November 26, 1884.
Wm. W Billson, for respondent.
The land in controversy was bid in by the state at the regular tax sale in 1880 for the taxes of 1879, delinquent June 1, 1880. No redemption nor any assignment by the state having taken place, the land was, in November, 1884, duly sold and conveyed to the plaintiff, under the direction of the state auditor and pursuant to law. The defendant's title comes from a tax sale in September, 1881, under Laws 1881, c. 135, to enforce payment of taxes delinquent prior to 1879; but the judgment upon which the sale was made wrongfully included, with other taxes, the amount of the taxes for 1879, delinquent in June, 1880, being the same for which the sale under which the plaintiff claims was made.
The trial court held that the lien for the taxes levied in 1879 was paramount to any lien for taxes levied before that time and that, therefore, the sale had to enforce the former cut off the lien of the latter, subject only to the right of redemption. This is in accordance with the generally recognized rule that a later or junior assessment of taxes, and the tax sale had upon it, are paramount to and take precedence of a senior assessment, and the tax sale upon it. Langley v. Chapin, 134 Mass. 82; Board of Regents v. Linscott, 30 Kan. 240, 1 P. 81; Robbins v. Barron, 32 Mich. 36; 2 Desty on Taxation, 966; Blackwell, Tax Titles, 544,...
To continue reading
Request your trial