Gatling v. Lane

17 Neb. 77
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 17 Neb. 77 (Gatling v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gatling v. Lane, 17 Neb. 77 (Neb. 1885).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

This is an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover the possession of lot 12 in block 3, in Pawnee City. The defendants in their answer allege that on the fifth of February, 1869, said lot was duly sold to one C. C. Roberts, for ithe taxes due thereon for the year 1864; that in February, 1867, the treasurer of said county executed a tax deed to said Roberts, conveying to him the title to said lot, which deed was during the same month duly recorded; that Roberts thereupon “on the sixteenth day of February, 1869, entered into and took possession of said described premises under and by virtue of his said tax deed, and remained in the peaceable, continuous, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of said premises under and by virtue of said tax deed aforesaid, and the title thereby conveyed, to the second day of September, A.D. 3869, when he sold and conveyed said premises for a valuable consideration to Wilson F. Street,” etc., who took possession of said premises and continued in possession thereof until the second day of December, 1870, when he sold and conveyed the same to the defendants, who thereupon took possession under said deed, and have remained in the “ peaceable, continued, exclusive, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of said premises, and have made valuable and lasting improvements of the value of $2,000 thereon.” The court below found the issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the action. The plaintiff commenced the action on the twenty-seventh of April, 1882, so that the defendants themselves were in possession of the premises claiming as assignees of the grantee in said tax deed for more than eleven years before the action was begun. This the attorneys for the plaintiff admit, but claim that the tax deed under which the defendants hold [79]*79is void upon its face, and this is the principal error relied upon.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Witherspoon v. Brummett
176 P.2d 187 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1946)
Perry v. Markle
254 N.W. 692 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1934)
Kuh v. Flynn
189 N.W. 280 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)
Criswell v. Criswell
163 N.W. 302 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1917)
Woodcock v. Unknown Heirs of Crosby
139 N.W. 646 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1913)
Ryan v. City of Lincoln
123 N.W. 1021 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Flanagan v. Mathiesen
97 N.W. 287 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)
Oldig v. Fisk
73 N.W. 661 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
City of Florence v. White
70 N.W. 50 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
Lantry v. Wolff
68 N.W. 494 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Twohig v. Leamer
67 N.W. 152 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Maxwell v. Higgins
57 N.W. 388 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Lantry v. Parker
55 N.W. 962 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)
Ward v. Huggins
32 P. 740 (Washington Supreme Court, 1893)
Tourtelotte v. Pearce
42 N.W. 915 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1889)
Gue v. Jones
25 Neb. 634 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1889)
Wilson v. Atkinson
20 P. 66 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Parker v. Starr
21 Neb. 680 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1887)
Stettnische v. Lamb
18 Neb. 619 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Neb. 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatling-v-lane-neb-1885.