Wood v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 07 June 1926 |
| Parties | WOOD v. WILSON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Land Court, Norfolk County; C. T. Davis, Judge.
Proceeding for registration of land title by Fred W. Wood, trustee, against Marion A. Wilson and others. From a decision for petitioner, the named respondent appeals. Affirmed.
G. W. Abele, of Boston, for appellant.
O. C. Boothby, of Boston (A. G. McVey, of Boston, of counsel), for appellee.
[2] This is a petition to register title to land in Quincy. The parcel in question is shown as lot D on a plan filed in a prior case for registration of title of a tract which included this parcel. In the earlier case it was decided that the petitioner (the respondent in the present case) did not have title to lot D. It was held, however, that certain rights of way were granted by the deed. The petitioner in the case before us showed title to the parcel involved, except in so far as the title is affected by the tax deed to the respondent and the right pertaining to lot A. The decree in the prior case is conclusive; it is res judicata upon all questions which were adjudicated by the land court. Studley v. Kip, 245 Mass. 242, 139 N. E. 485. The disputed question is the validity of the tax deed. It appears that the land was sold for taxes, to one Brown, at auction September 7, 1910. A collector's deed was delivered to Brown. It was recorded October 25, 1910, In 1920 Brown gave a quitclaim deed to Wilson, the respondent.
The master to whom the case was sent found that the tax title was invalid because the charge for the deed, affidavit and acknowledgment was $2.20, and the excess charge of 20 cents was without any warrant in law. The judge of the land court was right in deciding that the master was correct in ruling as he did, that the tax title was invalid because of the unlawful charge. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 13. The statute governs the amount of charges and it cannot be departed from, even if the total charge was not in excess of the amount allowed by the statute. If there was any error in the charge, the title was not valid, as a sale of a person's property for nonpayment of taxes must be conducted in strict compliance with the law, and every requisite of the statute must be complied with. Shurtleff v. Potter, 206 Mass. 286, 92 N. E. 331;Koch v. Austin, 225 Mass. 215, 114 N. E. 308;Kelly v. O'Rourke, 232 Mass. 168, 122 N. E. 169.Welch v. Haley, 224 Mass. 261, 112 N. E. 860, is not in conflict. In that case the error was merely in the computation of interest. Such an error did not make the sale void.
[3][4] The tax deed was not recorded until more than 30 days after the auction sale. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 44, requires that the deed of the collector of taxes shall not be valid unless recorded within 30 days after the sale. This provision of the statute is clear; it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Germann v. Matriss
-
City of Quincy v. Wilson
...is that the amount of taxes due stated in the taking was excessive. Hurd v. Melrose, 191 Mass. 576, 78 N.E. 302;Wood v. Wilson, 256 Mass. 340, 342, 152 N.E. 355, and cases cited. The excess, it is argued, resulted from the unlawful inclusion of the taxes of 1931. Prior to the taking, the la......
-
Wood v. Wilson
...of land title by Fred W. Wood, trustee, against Marion A. Wilson and others. After affirmance of decision for petitioner (256 Mass. 340, 152 N. E. 355), named respondent's motion for rehearing of the entire matter based on newly discovered evidence was denied, and he excepts. Exceptions ove......
-
City of Quincy v. Wilson
...argued by the respondent is that the amount of taxes due stated in the taking was excessive. Hurd v. Melrose, 191 Mass. 576 . Wood v. Wilson, 256 Mass. 340 , 342, and cases cited. The excess, it is argued, resulted from unlawful inclusion of the taxes of 1931. Prior to the taking, the land ......