Whitehead v. Desserich
| Decision Date | 06 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10013. |
| Parties | WHITEHEAD v. DESSERICH. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 1, 1922.
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Jefferson County; Samuel W. Johnson Judge.
Suit by Jacob Desserich against W. H. Whitehead. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
W. H. Whitehead, of Denver, pro se.
A. C Pattee, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error had judgment in a suit to quiet title in which the plaintiff in error was the only defendant who appeared and answered. The parties will be designated as in the trial court.
The complaint alleged plaintiff's ownership and possession and that the defendants asserted some interest or claim in the land in question, and prayed that the defendants might be required to set forth in nature of their claims, etc.
Defendant Whitehead answered, denying the plaintiff's title and possession, and alleging that defendant had a lien upon the property by virtue of tax certificates on sales for taxes for the years 1895, 1896, and 1897, and alleged further that he had paid the taxes for the year 1898. The defendant prayed that, if the plaintiff be found entitled to the property as against the defendants other than Whitehead, he should be required to redeem from the several sales and the payment made by said defendant.
Plaintiff replied, admitting the ownership of the tax certificates and the payment of the tax for 1898, but denied that defendant had any right to require the plaintiff to redeem from said sales, and denied that the certificates were liens upon the real estate.
This reply was filed on May 11, 1918. Thereafter a motion to strike a part of the reply was filed, and said part was withdrawn by stipulation of the parties. On November 9 1918, plaintiff asked leave to amend his reply, which leave was granted. He thereupon amended his reply by alleging that he had been for more than seven years prior to the commencement of the suit, in the actual possession of the said lands, under claim and color of title, made in good faith, and that for more than the said seven years, while in such actual possession, he had in good faith paid all the taxes assessed against said land, and that his possession was open, adverse, peaceable and exclusive during said period.
Motion to strike that part of the reply which sets up the statute of limitation and possession thereunder was denied.
On December 28, 1918, defendant filed an amendment to his answer in which he alleged that the claim of ownership and possession by the plaintiff was based upon four tax deeds, issued to the plaintiff for unpaid taxes for the year 1899, and that said taxes were not legally levied. The answer points out various alleged defects in the conduct of the sale for taxes.
A demurrer to the amended answer was overruled. On trial to the court, the court found that the plaintiff had sustained his allegations of possession and payment of taxes under color of title, made in good faith for more than seven years, and entered judgment in his favor.
The first error argued is in the ruling of the court upon the application to file an amendment to the reply. Counsel urge that it was not filed in apt time. We think the objection not well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Real Estate, Inc. v. Sullivan
... ... 120, ... 95 P.2d 1; City of Boulder v. Plains, Loan, Realty & ... Investment Co., 75 Colo. 86, 224 P. 233; Whitehead ... v. Desserich, 71 Colo. 327, [116 Colo. 172] 206 P. 384; ... Bennett v. City and County of Denver, 70 Colo. 77, ... 197 P. 768. But ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Wray v. McGinnis
...and levy of execution); Langley v. Young, 75 Colo. 44, 224 P. 231 (1924) (tax deed acknowledged by state treasurer); Whitehead v. Desserich, 71 Colo. 327, 206 P. 384 (1922) (defective deed); Latta v. Clifford, 47 F. 614 (C.C.D.Colo.1891) (warranty Further, the execution of a contract to pur......
-
B.B. & C. v. Edelweiss Condominium
...years). Color of title exists where a void, irregular, or defective deed appears to grant title. See, e.g., Whitehead v. Desserich, 71 Colo. 327, 330, 206 P. 384, 385 (1922) ("That a deed may be defective, and convey no title at all and yet give color of title is established beyond question......
-
City of Boulder v. Plains Loan, Realty & Investment Co.
...in the case, and it seems to be foreclosed by the case of Bennett v. Denver, 70 Colo. 77, 197 P. 768. See, also, Whitehead v. Desserich, 71 Colo. 327, 206 P. 384. for the city urges with great force that the statute (S. L. 1911, p. 565; C. L. § 7179) expressly makes general taxes subject to......