House v. Mainka

1945 OK 236, 163 P.2d 225, 196 Okla. 174, 1945 Okla. LEXIS 507
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 25, 1945
DocketNo. 31679.
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 1945 OK 236 (House v. Mainka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
House v. Mainka, 1945 OK 236, 163 P.2d 225, 196 Okla. 174, 1945 Okla. LEXIS 507 (Okla. 1945).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is the effect of including in notice of resale of real estate for nonpayment of taxes a certain part of the taxes assessed, but not delinquent upon the date of the first publication of notice.

At the November, 1938, tax sale for 1937 taxes the county became the purchaser. There was no redemption and no taxes paid for 1938 to. 1940, inclusive. Notice of 1941 resale was first published April 10, 1941, and included in the total of $118.29 all taxes levied for 1940. The last quarter of 1940 taxes did not become delinquent until May 1, 1941, 68 O. S. 1941 § 351. The land is farm land and was purchased at resale by an individual purchaser at a bid equaling the total amount of taxes, interest, penalties, and costs as disclosed by the notice of sale.

The notice should have excluded the last quarter of the 1940 taxes. Shnier v. Vahlberg, 188 Okla. 471, 110 P. 2d 593. The notice of resale was erroneous in that it was excessive in the sum of approximately $6, which was the portion of the 1940 taxes which had not yet become due and delinquent. That error and excessive amount in the notice for the reason indicated renders the sale invalid: See Lind v. McKinley, 196 Okla. 4, 161 P. 2d 1016.

The judgment of the trial court sustaining the validity of the resale deed is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to render judgment for the plaintiff; the plaintiff however, to be required to fully comply with the tender statute.

GIBSON, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, WELCH, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. HURST, V.C.J., and BAYLESS and CORN, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

Shellenberger v. Hicks
370 P.2d 292 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1962)
Pan Mutual Royalties v. Williams
1961 OK 165 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)
Kizzire v. Sarkeys
1961 OK 111 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)
Day v. Hart
1956 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1956)
Allgood v. Wetsel
1954 OK 238 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1954)
Sarkeys v. Scott
1954 OK 100 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1954)
Williams v. Bailey
1954 OK 19 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1954)
Woodring v. Morris
1953 OK 230 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1953)
Parks v. Replogle
1952 OK 447 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Jenkins v. Frederick
1952 OK 456 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Lawrence v. Ayres
1952 OK 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Cherry v. Hutchman
1951 OK 258 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
Norris v. Johnson
1951 OK 223 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
Reyes v. Goss
1951 OK 215 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
North v. Kidd
1951 OK 180 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
Lucas v. Lively
1949 OK 242 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1949)
Thompson v. Bonner
1948 OK 271 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
Smith v. Barry
1948 OK 220 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
Rogers v. Sheppard
1948 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
Williamson v. Hart
1947 OK 331 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1945 OK 236, 163 P.2d 225, 196 Okla. 174, 1945 Okla. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-v-mainka-okla-1945.